Studies in the Acts of the Apostles

[Resource Manager]

Peter's summary

 

H is review of the message made a tidy summary of God's revelation of salvation in Christ:

 

1. "The word (i.e. the Old Testament) was sent to the children of Israel" –this was their higher status, that they had the revelation first. But it was "by Jesus Christ." The Old Testament finds its true meaning only in him. And it was a message "proclaiming peace" – not peace as the antithesis to war, but in the sense of reconciliation with God; Israel needed that as much as any­one else. This promised Messiah is "Lord of all," i.e. of all kinds of man, Jew and Gentile, high and low.
    
   
2. That message became a spoken word (Gk: rhema; v.37– contrast logos in v.36) proclaimed by John the Baptist and by Jesus himself throughout the whole land, but it "began from Galilee (of the Gen­tiles)." The apostle's review of the work of Christ–preaching by the Holy Spirit, healing by the Holy Spirit –followed appropriately on the Holy Spirit's revelation in the Old Testament. "God was with him" (Jn. 3:2) – he was Immanuel, and there­fore the one appointed to fulfil the Immanuel prophecies (Is. 7:14; 9:6, 7; 11:1ff).
    
   
3. The witness of Peter and his fellow apostles (and maybe of some of the six Jews now present) followed on logically. They had seen the mighty works of the Lord, they had been present at his crucifixion, and they had personal experience of his open manifestation on the third day and thereafter. Well might Peter use the word "witness" four times over about this (v.42 Gk. is specially emphatic). And it follows, without any strain on faith, that he who has himself overcome the power of death will one day exercise that power on behalf of those who are his: "he is ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick and the dead" (cp. 2 Tim. 4:8).

 

This review, which Peter doubtless intended to develop in greater detail, came back to the Old Testament with which, apparently, Cornelius was already familiar: "To him give all the prophets witness." Did the apostle intend himself to be taken literally – all of them? – or was this a generalisation?

 

The forgiveness of sins through the Messiah, the mediator of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:34), was foretold by the prophets not only explicitly but also in a variety of sacrificial types and personal foreshadowings.

 

There can be little doubt that Peter was leading on to the importance of Christian baptism. His phrase: "that whosoever believeth into him," pointedly implies this. However his explicit exposition suffered an unexpected and sensational interrup­tion.

 

 

[Resource Manager]

Basic Principles

in

Peter's Gospel to the Gentiles

 

1. Old Testament preparation for Christ.
    
   
2. The Ministry of Jesus:
    
   
1. John the Baptist.
   
2. God was with him – Immanuel.
   
3. Miracles of healing.

 

[*] Atonement:

 

1. Crucifixion
    
   
2. Raised the third day.
    
   
3. Fellowship with the disciples after resurrection.

 

[*] The preaching of the gospel.

 

[*] The forgiveness of sins –

 

[*] through faith.

 

[*] In the gospel, no respect of persons:

 

1. Christ is Lord of all.
   
2. People called out of every nation (no racialism).

 

[*] Christ is the Judge–

 

[*] –of quick and dead; therefore, resurrection.

 

[*] The only negative emphasis – Jesus was not God, but was raised up and guided by God:

 

1. God was with him.
   
2. God anointed him.
   
3. God raised him from the dead.
   
4. God ordained him to be Judge of all.

 

Modern Christianity has abandoned or contradicted about half of the foregoing.

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 10:34–43

34. No respecter of persons. In Dt. 10:12–19 there is no verse which does not have details specially relevant to Peter and Cornelius.

35. Worketh righteousness. Is. 64:5, contradicted in the next verse! Pr. 14:34 has the Hebrew word for "Gentile." Note also Is. 56:6,7; 60:7.

In every nation, but not in every religion. Modern sentimental oecumenism finds no encouragement here.

36. Preaching peace. Is. 52:7; 57:19; and especially Eph. 2:14–17; a fine re–statement of these principles.

Lord of all. And therefore greater than prophets or apostles.

37. Throughout all Judaea. This is not told in the synoptic gospels, but only in John.

38. How God anointed Jesus Christ. Note Lk. 4:1,14,18. Here the Holy Spirit is linked with power, in 6:3 with wisdom, in 11:24 with faith, in 13:52 with joy, in Jn. 4:23; 14:17 with truth, and in 6:63 with life.

Oppressed of the devil. In the Old Testament this verb is frequently associated with Israel's bondage in Egypt, the not uncommon type of a greater deliverance. Cp. also Lk. 13:11; and see "Studies in the Gospels," ch.30.

39. We are witnesses. Not only Peter, but the six who were with him.

Whom they slew, hanging him on a tree. R.V. is correct here. A.V. is somewhat misleading. Peter's phrase applies the condemnation of the disobedient son (Dt. 21:22) to the Son who was wholly obedient. But why "tree", and not "cross"? In order to emphasize how that tree of death was transformed into a tree of life.

40. Shewed him openly. The same words, appropriately, in Rom. 10:20 (from Is. 65:1).

41. Who did eat and drink with him. Contrast Lk. 22:18. There was no sacramental sharing of bread and wine with them, but of course each meal expressed fellowship, as in so many other places in Scripture. The association of resurrection with eating of food (as the most convincing proof) is remarkably common: Mk. 5:43; Jn. 12:12; Acts 1:4; M,t. 26:29; and also Lk. 22:16; Rev. 3:20; 19:9; 2:7; Ex. 24:11.

Alternatively, the words: "who did eat and drink with him," may be read as a parenthesis referring to the apostles' sharing in the Last Supper with their Lord.

42. The balance of phrases requires:

To preach unto the people (of Israel), and To testify (to the Gentiles).

43. Whosoever. This is Joel 2:32 (Rom. 10:11). Believeth. 2:21 –Jew and Gentile alike.

Remission of sins – from the Judge of quick and dead. What a paradox!

[Resource Manager]

43. Cornelius baptized (10:44–48)

 

Peter's speech before that Roman assembly went unfinished. "While he yet spake," there came a divine interruption. It was Pentecost over again, this time specially for Gentiles. Indeed the mani­festation may have been in precisely the same way, with wind and fire, for Peter's phrase: "which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we" seems rather to imply: "just as we also (received it)."

 

A Gentile Pentecost

 

Here now were unclean Gentiles speaking with the holy tongues precisely as the unlearned and ignorant disciples had done at Pentecost. In harmony with the interpretation of this phenomenon suggested earlier, it may be presumed that Cornelius and his friends had not infrequently attended synagogue ser­vices, and now the Holy Spirit was "bringing to their remembrance all things" that they had heard there of the praise of God in Holy Scripture and in Hebrew prayers. "They (Peter's Judaist brethren) heard them speak with tongues, and glorify God" (cp. 2:11). Once again "tongues were for a sign, not to them that believed, but to them (of the circumcision) that believed not" that the gospel was for Gentiles as well as Jews (1 Cor. 14:22).

 

Had Matthew been given the chronic­ling of this remarkable happening, he would surely have written (as was his wont):'... that it might be fulfilled which was written by the prophet, I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring ... One shall say, I am the Lord's; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob ... and surname him­self by the name of Israel' (Is. 44:3,5).

 

"They of the circumcision"

 

As they saw and heard, the amaze­ment of the brethren was intense. Luke's phrase: "they of the circumcision" seems to imply that the problem of taking the gospel to Gentiles had already come in for considerable discussion in the ecclesias, and had already had the effect of bringing into being a circum­cision party so strongly influenced by their life–lone Judaistic prejudices that they were unwilling to consider the inclusion of Gentiles in the faith except on the basis of a full and complete acceptance of Jewish faith and practice (cp. Gal. 2:12; Tit. 1:10). To become brethren in Christ, Gentiles must first become proselytes to Judaism.

 

But now these men, whom Peter had deliberately, and very wisely, included in his party, were nonplussed at the phenomena which their eyes and ears would fain shut out. Had it been that Cornelius and the others merely spoke with tongues, this might have been shrugged off (though not so easily as a true believer today rightly dismisses the glossolalia of a modern 'Pentecostalists'). But the sights and sounds so akin to their own experience at their own Pentecost ruled out all argument.

 

So a "humbly triumphant Peter" (to use A. D. Norris's phrase) was able to say with all confidence: "No one can forbid the water, can he, that these should not be baptized?" The challenge was addressed, of course, to those who had so reluctantly accompanied him to Caesarea. And they had no answer to offer except a tacit agreement. "Who was I, that I should forbid God?" (11:17; s.w. 8:36). The apostle's words held true for alI his party.

[Resource Manager]

The importance of baptism

 

Forthwith Peter "commanded" baptism. This detail in the record is valuable. Even though Cornelius and the rest had already been well–instructed in the Faith and were fully converted and eager for fellowship, even though by this outpouring of the Holy Spirit the Lord in heaven signified his acceptance of them, the Holy Spirit in Peter (see notes) still required their baptism. "Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5). It was impossible to emphasize more strongly the utter necessity of this Christian sacrament.

 

The phraseology seems to imply that the actual baptizing was not done by Peter (Paul's principle also: 1 Cor. 1:14, 15). Then who performed the rite? Can it have been anyone other than a member of the circumcision party present with them? Presumably there was one individual among them less bigoted than the rest, who, whatever the strength of their prejudices, had no authority to forbid.

 

It is worthwhile to reflect on precisely what blessing Peter had brought to these new converts. Not instruction in the Faith, for Peter himself agreed that "that word (concerning Jesus) ye know." Not the gift of the Holy Spirit, for there had been no laying on of hands – Peter's brethren would probably have protested against this; the gift came direct from heaven. Apart from the gesture of fellow­ship, by coming under the same roof as these Gentiles, all that the apostle added was his explicit command to be bap­tized. Could anything impart to this symbolic burial and resurrection a higher importance? Christian baptism is not an experience to be accepted or by–passed according to personal inclination (Jn. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21).

 

Principles in conflict

 

There was this irregularity that, whereas the normal procedure, as illustrated at Samaria, was that first men believed and were baptized and then there followed the laying on of hands to impart the gift of the Spirit, here the procedure was reversed.

 

It is a good example of how, when two principles of godly practice come into collision, the less must give way to the greater. The sabbath law must give way to the higher duties of circumcision (Jn. 7:22, 23) and priestly offering of sacrifice (Mt. 12:5) and the healing of a stricken child of God (Lk. 13:16). Observance of the highly important Passover must have precedence over correct timing or scrupulous ceremonial cleansing (2 Chr. 30:15, 18, 19). There are times when the commandment of God must be feared, even though the king be dishonoured in the process (1 Pet. 2:17; Acts 5:29). And so also by mandate from heaven, in the first opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles.

 

Fellowship

 

Now the barriers were down, and by and by at a Breaking of Bread service there would be the holding of the first Love Feast, the Agape, with Jew and Gentile sharing a holy meal together.

 

But how many Jews? The significant detail is added: "Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." The implication is that "they of the circumcision" were so horrified at what had happened that they forthwith withdrew, leaving Peter there on his own. The apostle was happy in the fellowship of his fine new Gentile brethren, but uneasy nevertheless. He knew for certain that the Ecclesia of the Lord in Judaea was faced with a crisis of massive proportions.

 

 

Notes: 10:44–48

47. Can any forbid? This apostrophe can only have been addressed to the Jewish brethren. And Peter's phrase may have meant: "Is anyone empowered (by God) to forbid the (baptismal) water?"

48. Commanded. Here at last is the response to v.33. This Greek word is always used in the New Testament of a divine command – Peter's apostolic authority.

Then prayed they him. Gk. M.V. implies: "for their own benefit." Further instruction after baptism, always a wise procedure.

[Resource Manager]

44. Tension in Jerusalem (11:1–18)

 

Peter spent a fairly considerable time with Cornelius (according to Codex Beza and other texts), but eventually found his way back to Jerusalem; and, being apprehensive about the possibility of controversy regarding this latest sensational development, he was careful to take with him Simon the tanner (V.11RV) and the six brethren "of the circumcision" (v.12) who had accom­panied him to Caesarea.

 

Thanks to these recent events, the cir­cumcision party had crystallised out very rapidly (6:7; 10:45; 11:2; 15:5; Gal.2:12). There had been earlier examples of human infirmity and small–mindedness in the ecclesia–deceitful covetousness (5:2), grumbling (6:1), and simony (8:18). Now, worse than any of these, there was prejudiced dogmatism and faction. Then, as often since, the cry was: "The Truth of Christ is in danger," with the unspoken implication: "and unless we contend fiercely, all is in ruins."

 

There were probably not a few who remembered Peter's patchy past, and for that reason (and their own supreme self–confidence) they had no qualms about taxing the apostle with his spiritual misdemeanours. At first they did not contend; they were content to express doubts (v.2 Gk.). But they did it in such a way as to imply that there were few real doubts in their minds: "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them."

 

The criticism, be it noted, was not: "Thou didst baptize Romans," but "Thou didst have fellowship with them, and didst eat their food" (compare the situation in Gal. 2:12). The Love Feast, the meal of fellowship immediately before the Breaking of Bread, must have involved the eating of non–kosher food and the most intimate spiritual fellows–ship with unclean Gentiles.

 

It was probably this development more than anything else which caused the apostles to suffer such a drastic loss of popularity with the Jerusalem crowd (2:47; 12:2,3). There was evident dis­respect in the criticism. It is much to the apostle's credit that he made no asser­tion of holy authority in what he had done. Peter! you are a poor sort of pope! Nor did he fall back, as he well might have done, on the support of his fellow–apostles and the commission given to them by the Lord Jesus: "Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ..." Peter saw it as more impor­tant to convince these Judaist brethren that neither Cornelius nor his food were unclean.

 

Peter explains

 

So, before the apostles and leading brethren (v.1; 15:6), he proceeded to tell the whole story in considerable detail. But why should Luke, having told it all once, now go on to repeat it with little variation?

 

Long centuries before, Joseph had declared to Pharaoh: "For that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass" (Gen. 41:32). By the time Luke wrote his history this Judaist contention had become one of the most corrosive evils the church had to contend with. So Luke's underlining was not amiss, indeed it was necessary.

 

Peter told the details of his vision, and how he had stared fascinated at that mighty assemblage of living creatures. Only fishes were missing, necessarily so in a great linen sheet; any fish there must have been a dead one, or dying, and how could that be since the fish (and not the cross) had already become a well–estab­lished symbol of Christ, for ichthus, the fish, was so meaningful:

 

I - lesous - Jesus

Ch - Christos - Christ,

Th - Theou - of God

U - Huios - Son,

S - Soter - Saviour

[Resource Manager]

Defilement?

 

Peter's scrutiny had told him that the great sheet held clean animals as well as unclean. Even so, to the heavenly invita­tion to "kill for sacrifice, and eat," he returned an emphatic "No," for his lifelong Judaistic prejudices had taught him to abhor even defilement by asso­ciation. What clean animal could he choose for food from those which were intermixed with such an assemblage of unclean creatures?

 

More than this, Peter pondered the problem carefully (v.6.Gk.) before he dared to say: "Not so, Lord." This was no snap judgement. It was an expression of how he or any other Jew would react to such a situation. His prejudices were no different from those of the rest. The attitude adopted now by "them of the circumcision" was precisely how he had instinctively reacted to the challenge of Gentile faith and Gentile fellowship.

 

But that fiat from heaven was not to be gainsaid: "What God hath cleansed, make not thou common."

 

The implications were very far–reaching. In Peter's eyes, association had defiled even the clean animals he saw there. He had made them unclean. The command from heaven told him: 'You are not to continue with this attitude' (so Gk.).

 

The arrival of the men from Cornelius, just as Peter was pondering the vision, had provided an excellent lesson in the ways of God's providence, effectively over–ruling any remaining doubt he might have. And had not the Spirit ex­plicitly bidden him go with the men, making no distinction (v.12 Gk.) between Jew and Gentile?

 

The out–pouring of the Spirit on Cornelius and the rest – "as on us" (v.15, 17; 10:47) – had brought irresistible conviction. This was the work of their Lord. Had not John the Baptist (Lk. 3:16) and Jesus himself (Acts 1:5) both foretold that to the rite of water baptism would be added a baptism in Holy Spirit?

 

The reminder about John's baptism was not out of place, for at the same time John had dealt ruthlessly with Jewish pride: "Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father..." (Mt. 3:9,11). Did this boast and Jewish separation go hand in hand?

 

 

[Resource Manager]

Happy agreement

 

Without the slightest hint of personal self–importance, but by simply telling his simple story Peter had made his case, so that all argument subsided. 'So it is true! Faith in Christ is to save Gentiles as well as those whom he chooses out of Israel!'

 

The superficial inconsistency between "they held their peace" and "they continued glorifying God" is readily resolved. No more contention, but plenty of thankful praise to God.

 

The strange thing is that after such decisiveness the problem was to arise again some years later, more dogmatic­ally argued than ever. In fact, until the temple was destroyed, this bitterly contentious issue: Must Gentiles keep the Law if they are to have fellowship with Jewish believers? continued to ruin the peace of the Ecclesia of Christ.

 

 

Notes: 11:1–18

1. Received the word. But (10:37) they had already received the gospel before Peter came to Caesarea. So, here, this phrase must mean they were baptized.

2. Contended. The ambiguities about the translation of this Greek word (v.12; 10:20) are due to the fact that in active voice it means one thing and in passive or middle voice something different.

10. All drawn up into heaven, clean and unclean alike.

12. The man's house. Was the name of Roman Cornelius avoided to save provoking more prejudice? Yet consider 10:22.

14. Who shall tell thee words. Salvation depends not on emotion or sentiment but on words and the divine ideas they convey.

16. Then remembered I: "I was caused to remember." An allusion back to Jn. 14:26?

17. Unto us who believed. Peter's argument here: The Spirit was not given to us because of circumcision, but because of faith in Christ. These Gentiles have faith in Christ, so the like experience should be theirs also. Alternatively, with a different punctuation of the text: "God gave them who believed on (epi, not eis) the Lord Jesus Christ the like gift as he did unto us".

18. Held their peace. In LXX this Greek word commonly means rest from war.

Then. Gk: arage, with a subtle implication of: Who would have thought it?

[Resource Manager]

45. Antioch (11:19–30)

 

It is difficult to see why Luke did not continue his "Peter" narrative, rounding it off with the account of the apostle's imprisonment by Herod. Instead, he chose to interrupt the progress of that record with details about how the gospel, worthily led by Barnabas and Saul, forged ahead in Syrian Antioch.

 

Antioch was a large and beautiful city, after Rome and Alexandria the third in the empire. Its considerable commerce had attracted a large colony of Jews. But a superficial judgement would hardly have deemed it a good place for the preaching of the gospel, for its culture concentrated on art and literature, and there was every imaginable vice. Religion there was in plenty. Every crazy and outlandish cult of the empire found its devotees there. But what hope for the sober gospel of Jesus?

 

It was soon after the outbreak of Saul's persecution that the gospel got to Antioch, and also to Cyprus and the Lebanon. Fleeing from that onslaught, some of the brethren found safety in the north. The persecution had "scattered them as seed" (v.19). Nicolas, the proselyte of Antioch, one of the seven brethren who had administered relief to the poor of the ecclesia in Jerusalem (6:5), was doubtless one of these who fled thither. And there, undeterred, these refugees forthwith risked further hostility by a new vigorous preaching campaign. But since, as yet, no–one had thought of taking the gospel to any except Jews, this was still the self–imposed limitation of the scope of their message.

 

Jewish Jews, Greek Jews – and Gentiles?

 

There were certain of them who were not content to evangelize the orthodox Judaistic Jews. Since some of them were themselves Hellenistic Jews, that is, Greek–speaking and even accus­tomed to using the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in the synagogue, they gladly made use of wider opportunity to proclaim to Jews of their own sort that "the Lord (i.e. the Messiah) is Jesus" (v.20).

 

Their efforts were greatly blessed. "The hand of the Lord was with them (by miraculous signs? 4:30; 13:11; 2:47) and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord."

 

This group of zealous preachers at Antioch included "men of Cyprus and Cyrene," among whom may be fairly confidently identified Manaen (of Cyprus; 21:16) and Lucius of Cyrene and Simeon Niger (Simon of Cyrene; Mark 15:21), all three of whom were together in Antioch some short time later(13:1,2). The mention of Grecian Jews in this passage faces expositors with a con­siderable problem. The manuscript evidence in favour of reading "Grecian Jews (Hellenists)" in v.20 is overwhelm­ing. The reading "Grecians," i.e. Gentiles, is found in Codex A and also as added "corrections" to Codex D and Codex Sinaiticus. All the rest, a con­siderable number, read "Grecian Jews." Nevertheless, with hardly an exception the commentators accept the reading "Greeks" because, they say, so many details in the context require this. These details and supporting arguments are set out separately at the end of this chapter.

 

The RV reading is unusual: "a great number that believed turned to the Lord." This appears to mean that many hitherto–uncommitted sympathizers now came forward for baptism, but there is no indication what brought about this sudden surge of progress, unless v.22a is meant to signify the witness of some remarkable miracles. Apparently this very successful preaching at Antioch was regarded in Jerusalem, when the news got back there, as a development of some considerable importance, for the brethren thereupon sent Barnabas as a one–man delegation to give advice and direction.

[Resource Manager]

Barnabas the reconciler

 

But what was the particular problem which made such a decision necessary or desirable? The best guess available is that there had arisen some danger of fragmentation in the ecclesia because of the existence of two groups of brethren differing widely in outlook and way of life and methods of handling Scripture. The Hebraistic brethren were doubtless still very zealous not only for the Law of Moses but also for much of the super­added rabbinic tradition. On the other hand the Hellenistic believers thought nothing of having their synagogue and ecclesial services wholly in Greek and they tended to live more like Greeks than like orthodox Jews. This problem had existed in Jerusalem but in a much less acute form, and thanks to the presence of the apostles, it had not been difficult to reach authoritative and therefore satisfactory compromises. Now the pacific Barnabas was called upon to carry to Antioch the Jerusalem solutions or something fairly similar befitting the local circumstances.

 

Barnabas, "when he came and had seen the grace of God, was glad." This might mean either of two things — that Barnabas witnessed evident tokens of spiritual devotion in these converts, so assured were they of the forgiveness of sins (as in Rom. 3:24;6:1 etc.); or that he saw the powers of the Holy Spirit in action among them (e.g. Rom. 1:5; 12:3,6). This latter interpretation pre­supposes that the Holy Spirit had been given directly from heaven, as on Corn­elius and the rest (10:45), since as yet none of the apostles had been to Antioch to impart the gift by the laying on of hands (8:15,17). Or, since Saul was now recognized as having the rank of an apostle (9:28), had he been used by the Lord to impart Spirit gifts in Antioch when on his way to Tarsus (9:30; Gal. 1:21)?

 

So all that Barnabas had to do was to "exhort them all" (that is, both groups of believers– Hebraistic and Hellenistic Jews), that with steadfastness of mind they would "cleave unto the Lord." Their initial enthusiasm would be of little value unless it was maintained (14:22; 15:32; 16:40). And the easing of the strains created by the different outlook and background of the two sections was to be found, of course, by centring their loyalty on Christ. With him dominating their affections they would learn readily enough to tolerate relatively unimportant divergences among their brethren.

 

Barnabas, "the son of exhortation," was certainly the right man to impart such exhortation. Who more persuasive than he? Apparently he also gave much encouragement to a yet more vigorous campaign in the city, for "much people was added to the Lord" (besides those mentioned in v.21). Thus, neatly, Luke makes an apt allusion to Barnabas's other name, for Joseph means either "the Lord is adding" or” he who is adding to the Lord,"

 

Saul as well

 

Barnabas also realised that here was a splendid opportunity for the further rehabilitation of Saul who had been received with such suspicion by the brethren in Jerusalem. So, knowing that Saul had last been heard of heading for Tarsus (9:30), he went off there to find him. In this action by Barnabas there is implicit a very lovely trait of character. He was evidently quite free from any spirit of self–importance. He did not now regard the brisk and highly successful preach­ing in Antioch as his own exclusive field of operation. He was perfectly willing to share his leadership at Antioch with one more able than himself.

 

Tracking Saul down evidently took some time, and then the exercise of a good deal of persuasion. The Bezan text reads: "He went forth seeking him. And when he met with him, he exhorted him to come to Antioch." It would seem, first, that Saul had already begun missionary work on his own in the Tarsus area, or Barnabas would surely have found him at the synagogue on his first sabbath there; and, second, that Saul exhibited some reluctance to accompany Barnabas to Antioch. But this young man, whom Jesus had loved when he looked on him (Mk. 10:21), had more than ordinary powers of persuasion, so very soon these two old friends, who had once been colleagues in the Sanhedrin, were now together giving a superb lead to the thriving ecclesia at Antioch.

 

This work went on vigorously for a whole year, and the two leaders were "assembled together in the ecclesia, and they taught much people" – the phrase implies a yet further surge of success, and this in an environment which most would have judged to be quite unpromis­ing.

 

But "assembled together" is a strange phrase to apply to two men (and this is the natural way to read it). However, the same word is used repeatedly in LXX for giving lodging or hospitality (e.g. Josh. 2:18; Jud. 19:15; 2 Sam. 11:27). So the reference may well be to a year's hospit­ality given to Saul and Barnabas at the home of Simon of Cyrene. (For details on this, see ch.48 and "Studies in the Gospels", ch.223).

[Resource Manager]

"Christians"

 

"And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The assumption is almost universally made that as the believers became more widely known in the city, this was a nickname coined for them in a scurrilous or good–tempered fashion by the populace.

 

Such a view is quite palpably mis­taken, for the word "called" translates most inadequately a Greek word which in every other occurrence (eight of them) requires the idea of divine guidance or inspiration. In other words, it was by the help of the Holy Spirit that this name came to be adopted. It may be possible to go further and infer from the immediate context (and the introduction of the Greek particle te) that it was either Barnabas or Saul to whom this revelation was given, more probably the latter, for why should a name with a Latin termination – Christianoi – be given in a Greek–speaking city, except with a view to future activity when the name of Christ would be taken to all parts of the Roman empire? Who but Saul would think thus then?

 

The New Testament has a wide variety of names for those in Christ — Nazar­enes, Galileans, "this faction" (all of these unsympathetic), brethren, dis­ciples, believers, saints, elect, faithful, the Ecclesia, the Way — but here now was a name of double value: it picked out those who were always talking about The Christ; and it lent itself easily to the idea of "The King's men."

 

But the commentators are not entirely wrong, for it did become a nickname. In popular speech Christianoi readily became Chrestianoi, the kindly folk. This confusion between Christos and Chrestos was recognized by the apostles, and even encouraged by them:

 

"His kindness (chrestotes) towards us

through Christ" (Eph. 2:7).

"If so be that ye have tasted that the

Lord is gracious (Chrestos)" (1 Pet. 2:3).

"Be ye kind (Chrestos) one to another

... even as God for Christos sake..." (Eph. 4:32).

"Evil communications corrupt good

(Chrestos) manners" (1 Cor. 15:33).

See also Rom. 2:4; 16:18; Tit. 3:4.

 

Eusebius says that Luke was a native of Antioch. This is not certain. He may have been confusing Luke with Lucius, mentioned in ch. 13:1,2. But it is rather remarkable that at this point the Bezan text has one of the famous "we" pas­sages, thus implying that Luke was there in Antioch and able to report from personal experience: "and there was much gladness; and when we were gathered together ..." (v.28). But it is possible (see ch.59) that this touch of "we" narrative was supplied by Titus who was at Antioch at this time.

 

Agabus prophesies famine

 

Amongst those from Jerusalem now organized as members of the Antioch ecclesia were certain brethren to whom the Holy Spirit had imparted the gift of prophecy. One of these, named Agabus (which appropriately means "locust") made a formal declaration before the ecclesia that soon there was to be a dire famine. As in one of his later prognosti­cations (21:11), he accompanied this prophecy with some appropriate sym­bolic action (not specified by Luke), after the manner of one of the prophets of the Old Covenant.

 

This famine duly came to pass in the reign of Claudius (41–54), especially in the years A.D.45,46 when there was serious scarcity in various parts of the empire. In the literature of the time there are plenty of explicit references to this — in Josephus, Pliny, the Egyptian papyri, for example. "In no other reign do we find such varied allusion to periodical famines," writes Knowling in the Expos­itor's Greek Testament.

 

There can be little doubt that, although the prophecy of Agabus seems to the modern reader to be comprehensive in its scope – "throughout all the inhabited earth" – Luke's reference was intended specially to Judaea, for evidently the brethren in Syria were not hard hit or they would hardly have been in a position to send relief to Jerusalem. Josephus (Ant.20.2.5) tells how Queen Helena of Adiabene, a convert to Judaism, bought up supplies of corn and figs in Egypt and Cyprus for the aid of the famine–stricken poor in Judaea. Similar action by the brethren would be made necessary by a probable exclusion of Christians from the poor–relief which was normal in Jewry in those days.

[Resource Manager]

Aid for the poor brethren

 

The decision to help the Jerusalem disciples in this way was God–guided –through Agabus or one of the other brethren with the gift of "prophecy" or "wisdom." The Greek word for "deter­mined" (v.29), in all its other six occurrences, plainly means a divine over–ruling. (For further details on this systematic collection in Gentile ecclesias for the help of poor Jewish brethren, see Gal. 2:10; Acts 20:4;24:17; Rom. 15:16,26–31; 2 Cor. 8; 9; 12:17,18).' The brethren contributed each "according to his prosperity" (cp. 1 Cor. 16:1–4), the guiding principles clearly being: From every man according as God has blessed him, and to every man according to his need (Acts 4:32,35). "The Lord knoweth the days of the upright ... in the days of famine they shall be satisfied ... the righteous sheweth mercy and giveth" (Ps. 37:18,19,21). "The eye of the Lord is upon them that hope in his mercy ... to keep them alive in famine" (Ps. 33:18,19).

 

Barnabas was certainly an idea! choice as one of those to be entrusted with this ecclesial benevolence, for he was not only very sympathetic and understanding, but he had also set a matchless example to the rest by the selling of his real estate in order to make earlier contribution for a similar need (4:34–37). In this context he is very appropriately described as "a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith" (v.24). It must have required a special divine impulse to give a man, who had loved his riches and depended on them (Lk. 18:23), the faith to make such a drastic renunciation.

 

The choice of Saul as colleague of Barnabas in this good work may well have been suggested by a similar act of self–denial on his part. The indications are that he came of a wealthy family, and yet in later days, he was glad to accept financial help from Philippi (Phil. 4:10–16), and had to find time to work for his living (Acts 20:34). After all, many in the Jerusalem ecclesia had been reduced to abject poverty through his plundering and persecution, so it would be strange indeed if one of his first acts after conversion was not a drastic attempt at recompense.

 

Additional Note on Hellenists

(Greek–speaking Jews) and Hellenes

(Greeks, Gentiles) (11:20).

 

It has already been pointed out that the manuscript evidence strongly favours the former reading, and in the commentary here this has been taken to be correct. But almost every scholar (Westcott and Hort, and Kay, being honourable exceptions) has assumed that the context, and arguments based on it, require the reading "Hellenes." Their case, set out here, is very impressive:

 

1. The Greek construction: men (v.19)... de (v.20) ... , requires a contrast between Jews and Gentiles, not between Jews and Jews.
   
2. "The hand of the Lord was with them" (v.21) must surely mark a sensational development in the work. And the allusion to Is. 49:22 points to a Gentile context.
   
3. The special mission of Barnabas points to something highly important. But if v.20 means "Grecian Jews," men of this class had already heard the gospel in Jerusalem, in the ministry of Stephen (6:9).
   
4. In v.2 the Bezan text has this: "When Peter was come up to Jerusalem, and had announced to them the grace of God (i.e. the Holy Spirit on Gentiles; 10:45), they of the circumcision ..." Then, when Barnabas "saw the grace of God," was not that also an out­pouring of the Spirit on Gentiles?
   
5. "He exhorted them all that ... they would cleave to the Lord" surely means both Jews and Gentiles.
   
6. "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch," i.e. when Jews and Gentiles were first brought together in one harmonious community.
   
7. Relief for the brethren in Judaea (v.29) always came from Gentiles; cp. Gal. 2:9,10 etc.
   
8. The sequence in Gal. 1:16 (Gentiles), 21,23 is significant.
   
9. It was at Antioch where the Gentile fellowship problem first boiled up (Gal. 2:11–14).

 

None of these points can be called decisive, but the cumulative effect is pretty strong.

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 11:19–30

23. Cleave to the Lord; cp. 14:22; 15:32; 16:40. In all ecclesial experience, few exhortations are more important: Do not be put off by any discouragement or difficult circumstance. Hang on, regardless! Mt. 11:6; Jn. 20 .29.

Luke provides no detail of Paul's Cilician ministry. Is this because there wasn't one? or because his status as apostle was not yet generally recognized and his work therefore open to censure as unauthorised? But what of v.19,20? – was that authorised? 26.

A whole year. This Greek word usually refers to the religious year; thus saying by implication that during that time they made no effort to keep the Feasts in Jerusalem.

28. This unusual incident was probably intended to be read as symbolic also of spiritual famine in Israel, whilst Gentiles prospered in the gospel.

Signified. Cp. Is. 20:2,3; Jer. 18,19; Ezek. 4,5; and the same Greek word in Rev. 1:1.

That there should be. Greek; mellein followed by a future infinitive must mean. God purposed that it should so come about.

A great dearth. Acts 12:20 implies that it had not yet come about. The relevance of the Epistle of James to the early chapters of Acts has already been pointed out. There, in 5:17,18, there is a prophet of the Lord foretelling famine. And another passage just before that (5:14,15) seems to correspond very closely to the healing of Aeneas (Acts 9:32–35).

World. In some places this word has a distinctly limited reference (to the Land of Israel); Mt. 24:14; Lk. 21:26; Acts 17:6; Rev. 3:10; 12:9; 16:14. The Romans used it not of the entire world but of the Roman habitable. Apparently Jews used it similarly about their territory.

29. More details about this in connection with 20:4.

30. This verse describes what was done when the famine came later on.

The elders, that is, the governing body of the church at Jerusalem; 15:2,4,6; 21:6. The apostles had, of course, wider powers of control over ecclesias everywhere.

[Resource Manager]

46. Peter in Prison (12:1–11)

 

One of the interesting instances of Luke's splendid historical accuracy is his mention (in Acts 12) of Herod Agrippa I as king in Jerusalem. For, after Herod the Great and his son Aristobulus, for thirty years there was no king over Judaea, but direct Roman rule instead. The Herod Antipas of Luke 23:7 was king of Galilee, and only a visitor to Jerusalem at that time.

 

This Herod, brother of the Herodias who schemed for the death of John the Baptist, made such use of his friendship with the new emperor Claudius as to be granted the rule of all Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee. This lasted for only three years, and then there was no king in Jerusalem until the Crusades.

 

Herod Agrippa I

 

Yet Luke goes into some detail here about this Herod Agrippa, and is found to be chronologically and factually depend­able. Acts 12 falls within those three years.

 

Like nearly all the Herods, this one was fascinating, profligate, spendthrift and cunning. His friendship with Caligula brought him the tetrarchy of Iturea, and his intimacy with the next emperor Claudius added yet further prosperity.

 

All at once it was as though he had turned over a new leaf. But this was just so much Machiavellian statecraft. He had the wit to realise that the only way to rule the Jews with tolerable success was to gain their religious approval. So, out­wardly at any rate, he became a convert to Pharisaism. From now on, he appear­ed before the nation as one full of zeal for the Law.

 

There is a marvellous story of him reading publicly from Deuteronomy 17 at the Feast of Tabernacles. When he came to the words: "Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother," he – an Edomite – broke down and burst into tears (real or feigned?). But the people cried out: "Be not disturbed! Thou art our brother, thou art our brother!"

 

Every detail about him in Acts 12 chimes in with this. He knew how to stage–manage a public occasion! He knew also that a good demagogue gives the mob someone to hate, so he turned on the Christians and by that deliberate choice he sealed his own fate.

[Resource Manager]

The death of James

 

Earlier the Pharisees (8:1,3) and the Sadducees (5:17,18) had both let loose persecution against the brethren. Now the Herodians were making their effort. The date of it is fixed precisely by the death of Herod as being the Spring of A.D.44.

 

James, the son of Zebedee, was put to death, and at the same time others suffered also. The fact that James was slain with the sword and not killed by stoning indicates that the accusation against him was not religious. Then what could it have been? and why James in particular? There are paragraphs in the Epistle of James (this James!) which could not have been spoken and written against fellow–believers in Jerusalem (e.g. 4:4; 5:1–4). It may well be that denunciations such as these were spoken publicly against men like Herod, especially since there is little doubt that James, one of the three leading apostles, was a more vigorous character than his brother, as the expression "John, the brother of James" testifies (Mt. 4:21; 10:2; 17:1). But here Luke writes "James, the brother of John," because in later years the readers of Acts would be so much more familiar with the surviving

brother.

 

Clement of Alexandria has an impres­sive story, preserved by Eusebius in his Church History (2:9), that the man who "led James to the judgement–seat" (betrayed him? was chief witness against him?) was so impressed by the apostle's bearing that he thereupon confessed belief in Christ and was condemned to the same fate. "On their way, he entreated James to be forgiven of him; and James, considering a little, replied: 'Peace be unto thee,' and kissed him; and then both were beheaded at the same time." James, a man of God, did not call down fire from heaven on Herod and his fifty (2 Kgs. 1:10; Lk. 9:54–56).

 

Very shortly before the crucifixion James and John had asked for the chief seats in Christ's kingdom, but instead were promised that they should share their Lord's cup and his baptism of suffering (Mt. 20:23). Now, for James the words came true (but very differently for his brother!).

 

It is remarkable that the martyrdom of one of the out–standing apostles should be recorded so very briefly by Luke. Assuredly the New Testament historians do not go in for purple writing. Straining for effect was no element of their technique. Can it be that Luke hoped to write another volume about the other apostles (including James), and hence his brevity here?

 

This summary execution of James gave the Jews a lot of pleasure, and appreciably increased Herod's popular­ity. Yet, not many years earlier, the believers had stood high in the esteem of the populace in Jerusalem (2:47). Prob­ably there were two main factors bring­ing loss of popularity – the conversion of Barnabas and later of Saul, both of them distinguished members of the Sanhe­drin; and the story that these Nazarenes were now accepting unclean Gentiles into their fellowship, a development which had doubtless been reported by spies planted in the ecclesia (Gal. 2:4).

 

How did Herod see that the execution of James had added appreciably to his public reputation? Presumably there was an enthusiastic demonstration be­fore his palace, in response to which, glad to capitalise on this situation, he blithely promised them another victim.

[Resource Manager]

Next, Peter

 

It was Passover, and there were great crowds in Jerusalem. The city would buzz with talk approving the king's action, so– master of publicity that he was!–he decided (and made the decision known; v.11) that as soon as Passover week was over Peter would be put on trial before the Sanhedrin, for this time it was a religious indictment. With this affectation of great scrupulosity about the holy week, Herod, with all the hypocrisy of an astute politician, now scored higher marks than ever with the crowd. They applauded his decisiveness and his piety.

 

But why did Herod not round up all the other apostles? Probably because they were away from Jerusalem at this time (v.17 seems to imply this).

 

So now, for the third time (4:3; 5:18) Peter found himself in prison, and in more dire danger than ever. Because of the remarkable escape on an earlier occasion (5:23), the apostle was most strictly guarded, Every three hours the watch was changed. Two soldiers were with him in the cell, chained to him, and two others were on duty outside the door.

 

The servant and his Lord

 

For a whole week the apostle was a prisoner, and all that time prayer was offered for him unceasingly by the brethren. Doubtless they had hoped that in answer to their prayers there would be a third–day "resurrection" like that of their Lord at an earlier Passover, but that third day had come and gone. And now it was the night before Peter's trial (v.6 RV), and their importunity was renewed the more fervently.

 

From this point on, the narrative has an astonishing number of verbal resemblances to the gospel record of the suffering of Christ and his resurrection, Passover, intense prayer (as in Geth­semane), Peter asleep, the coming of an angel, the apostle's rising up (same word as 'resurrection'), the iron gate was no obstacle (cp. the stone before the tomb) and the disciples believed not for joy. It is difficult to think that these corres­pondences are accidental, but what precisely is the point of them?

 

The ensuing details in the story must have been supplied by Peter himself. They probably reached Luke via John Mark.

 

When Paul was in prison he prayed and sang hymns (16:25). Peter, although shackled to a guard on either side, composed himself for a good night's sleep, even though it might be his last. "I question" says one old commentator rather sardonically, "whether Herod, who condemned him, slept half so soundly."

[Resource Manager]

A startling deliverance

 

But all at once Peter felt himself being shaken into wakefulness. "He must be smote before he could be waked, and his shackles fell off easier than his sleep." First, a sharp blow on his side, and then he found himself blinking at an un­expected bright light shining in the darkness of the cell. But the two soldiers slept on.

 

The heavenly messenger spoke a brief imperative: "Rise up quickly." And Peter found that he could, for his chains were loose on his limbs.

 

"Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals."

 

Peter had doubtless recalled his Lord's prophecy: "When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not" (Jn. 21:18). Now the time of fulfilment was come.

 

But no! for did not this unexpected visitor bid him: "Gird thyself"? It was Passover language, for in ancient days Israel had been commanded to have "loins girt, shoes on feet, and staff in hand" (Ex. 12:11), ready to go forth to freedom.

 

The apostle had doubtless been pray­ing for help as fervently as his brethren in the city, but like them he was just as unwilling to believe that here was the answer to his prayer: "he felt sure (Gk.) he saw a vision" – it was surely a dream, more real than life.

 

The "angel" of the Lord

 

Who was this unexpected deliverer? A fair case can be made for the view that this "messenger of the Lord" was some highly–placed official who secretly shared the convictions of the brethren and who by drugs or bribery, or both, was able to contrive Peter's freedom. It is not impossible that such an individual might be used by God on the apostle's behalf. Nor is it impossible that Gabriel, the angel of answered prayer (Dan. 9:21; 10:12; Lk. 1:19,13,26,30; 22:43,44) should be on active service in this very striking deliverance.

 

Peter, stupefied, incredulous, fol­lowed his unrecognized helper as he quietly threaded his way between the two other sleeping guards outside. The great iron gate was already unlocked, they went down the seven steps (so Codex Beza), and Peter was then guided along one particular street outside, as though he were being steered in the most useful direction. Then, task accomplished, the deliverer went off into the darkness, leaving Peter to realise by degrees that it was not a vivid dream after all, and that since he had been left quite near the home of John Mark, he may as well go there first of all and get the news of his freedom to the brethren.

 

But first he paused a while in the darkness of the street to offer thanks to God for his escape.

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 12:1–11

1. Stretched forth his hands. Foretold in Lk. 21:12.

Certain. The prophets in 1 Th. 2:15 may have included some of those in 11:27. 3.

It pleased the Jews. A dominant principle (lack of principle!) with politicians; 24:27; Mk. 15:15.

4. After Passover. Jn. 18:28 shows the same false scruple in the same kind of men.

5. Prayer. Of course they had prayed for James too, but then they had had No for an answer.

Without ceasing. Literally: "stretched out," both in time and in intensity.

For him. Gk: concerning; not, on behalf of — which might suggest that after the death of James they were now feeling unsure of the power or validity of their prayers. Verse 15a points to the same conclusion. 7. It may be inferred that this deliverance happened soon after 3a.m. Changes of guard would take place at 3 and 6. These guards slept till daylight at 6 (Passover time). Had they belonged to an earlier watch, they would have been disturbed by the guard–change at 3. It follows that all the excitement between v.7 and 17 was packed into about 11/2 hours – 3.30 to 5.

The angel of the Lord. In the Gk. text both definite articles are missing. This might support the first of the two suggestions in the commentary; see also the note on v.10.

Came upon him, and a light... The close similarity to Lk. 2:9 supports the second suggestion.

Smote Peter. Contrast v.23 s.w. Sandals, not shoes. Evidently Peter took Mk. 6:9 very literally.

10. Passed on. The Gk. prefix here normally implies "beforehand." Then who was behind?

11. Of a truth; s.w. 10:34; 4:27. In each case, Peter.

[Resource Manager]

47. The voice of an Apostle, and the voice of a god (12:12–25)

 

There in the darkness Peter at last realised just what had happened and where he now was– not in a cell, man­acled and guarded, but a free man and within a stone's throw of a familiar Christian home. So with brisk step he betook himself thither. Of course, as soon as his escape was known there would be intensive search for him, especially in those places where the disciples were known to foregather, so he must not be found at any of them. To be taken thus would bring disaster on others besides himself. But he must let the brethren know that he was free.

 

Soon he was knocking at the door of the home where John Mark and his mother lived. It was a big house, used frequently by the disciples as a meeting place. Indeed it was probably there where Jesus had kept the Last Supper with the apostles. But now "the goodman of the house" (Mk. 14:14) was dead, possibly one of the victims of Saul's savage persecution (26:10).

 

Prayers answered

 

Now, that upper room was full, quite full, of praying disciples who had been called together to unite their final supplications on Peter's behalf. And doubtless there were other homes dotted round Jerusalem where the same intense importunity was being concen­trated. But in those prayers was an element of hopelessness, for they all knew how the Lord himself had signified to Peter by what death he would glorify God (Jn. 21:18,19). Perhaps this was the time. Then should they pray contrary to what the Lord himself had pre­appointed? Perhaps it would be best just to pray that their loved and admired leader would be made strong to with­stand this latest and worst trial.

 

But there were others who remem­bered too that Jesus had said: "When thou shalt be old..." Could Peter, now at most fifty, be described as an old man? And had he not on two former occasions been arrested and then delivered?

 

So there were differing degrees of faith and different kinds of prayer.

 

Rhoda

 

Suddenly they became aware that their prayers were being interrupted by a quiet but persistent knocking at the outer door. Rhoda, the servant girl, who had already that night greeted by name a large number of brethren as they arrived, now moved quickly and quietly to wel­come this late–comer. But she hadn't even time to peer out through her peep­hole, for now Peter, having heard a footstep in the passage, added the urgency of his voice: 'Rhoda, it's me– let me in–quick.'

 

Immediately she knew who it was, and in her excitement ran back to the brethren, bursting in on their devotions with: 'There's brother Peter at the door. I'm sure it is he.'

 

The immediate reaction from more than one was: 'You must be crazy. It can't be.'

 

But she insisted. 'It is, I tell you, it is. I'd know that voice anywhere.'

 

'But how can it be?' said someone, cool and level–headed. 'Peter's in prison. And if they did let him out, they wouldn't free him in the middle of the night. But perhaps (Codex Beza) he's managed to send a message. That's it! It's his messenger who is there.'

 

Whilst Rhoda still protested, a few of them made a rush for the door, to answer that persistent knocking.

 

Now, as they set eyes on Peter in the dim light of Rhoda's oil lamp, they were all utterly flabbergasted. By all means pray with all fervour on Peter's behalf, but it would be altogether too unreal to expect your prayer to be granted – and forthwith!

 

In a moment they were all talking at once. The clamour became consider­able, so that Peter, fearing that the hubbub would disturb the neighbour­hood and thus increase the danger, made a vigorous gesture for quiet.

 

Within the house he quickly and thankfully explained the marvel of his freedom. There was – one may be sure –heartfelt thanksgiving to God, and a plea for forgiveness that their faith should have been so unrealistic.

[Resource Manager]

The "other place"

 

Then, with no loss of time, arrange­ment was made for messengers to go to other prayer–meetings of the brethren and especially to James, the Lord's brother, who by common consent had come to be recognized as the most fitting leader of the Jerusalem ecclesia. The other apostles also would have been specially informed, but they were now all of them busy in the work of the Lord away from Jerusalem; or, after the arrest of Peter, had they all been hustled out of the city to save them from Herod's persecu­tion?

 

The obvious assumption was that, as soon as the prisoner's disappearance was known, a watch would be set at the city gates, all of them kept closed until first light. So probably the "other place" to which Peter was taken was some ob­scure Christian home where no one would dream of looking for him. Then, perhaps a few days later, the disguised apostle would be able to get away, mingl­ing with the crowd at the busiest time of the day.

 

Where at last, he went for safety is entirely a matter of guesswork. Almost certainly it was to some place outside Herod's administration. The Catholic Church is emphatic that he went to Rome. Almost certainly (although Farrar argues strongly against it) Peter did visit Rome and die there in the Nero perse­cution. But among all the early church notices there is none that identifies an earlier visit except one by Eusebius who specifically mentions the reign of Claudius (i.e. Acts 12); but this comes in a very fanciful paragraph about Simon Magus which deserves little credence (Ecc. Hist. 2.14).

 

A much more likely guess is that Peter went to Antioch. He could just as easily evade search in that vast city as in Rome. It was outside Herod's jurisdiction, and it had a thriving community of Christians. Also, some time after this Peter certainly was in Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas (Gal. 2:8–14). Over against this, however, is the remarkable omission of Peter's name from the enumeration of prominent brethren busy at Antioch soon after this (13:1,2).

 

It is probable that Peter actually kept his intended place of refuge secret from the brethren so that, later, when Herod's men made investigation, under inter­rogation they would be able to say firmly and convincingly: "We do now know where he has gone. He did not tell us."

 

Action at the prison

 

Meantime, when a fresh quaternion of soldiers came on duty at Peter's cell at six in the morning, the guards were found to be asleep and the prisoner gone. The excitement created by this discovery was considerable.

 

The two main steps taken by Herod both proved futile. Christian homes were raided and numbers of them were brought in for questioning. But they all told the same convincing but incredible story. No one could give any hint as to where Peter had now fled.

 

The soldiers also were roughly cross–examined. Their stories harmonized but were utterly unhelpful, so Herod worked off some of his exasperation by throwing them into prison (according to the Roman code). The king was extremely angry, for had he not published his intention that that morning Peter was to be put on trial before the Sanhedrin? And now instead there was this vexing loss of face. But he could do nothing about it. So he went off to Caesarea, hoping to dis­tract the people's attention by a fine exhibition of statesmanship in the Tyre–and–Zidon crisis.

[Resource Manager]

Herod at Caesarea

 

A mighty quarrel had sprung up between Herod and the rulers of these two highly prosperous commercial cities. They were "nourished by the king's country," so that good relations were an absolute necessity. Nearly all the commentators assume that Tyre and Zidon needed supplies from the wheat regions of Galilee and Peraea. But al­though such supplies were doubtless desirable, they were hardly necessary, for the mercantile marine of Phoenicia gave ready access also to the food–growing areas of Egypt and Cyprus. Besides this, was there not "a great dearth" in Israel at that time (11:28,29), so that with the best will in the world there would not be much food to export?

 

The issue, then, between the two states must have concerned the over­land trade routes converging on Tyre and Zidon, since all of those from the south and east had to pass through Herod's territory. The king knew that he had a half–nelson on these prosperous neighbours of his, and he meant to make the most of it.

 

Stage–managing

 

Accordingly, in the amphitheatre which still exists in Caesarea full prepar­ation was made for an impressive state occasion. It was arranged that im­mediately after sun–up Herod would make a highly important speech regard­ing this political problem.

 

The deputation from Phoenicia, des­perately anxious about the outcome, had already made secret approaches to one of the king's high officials called Blastus, reinforcing their friendliness with a sub­stantial bribe. Whatever persuasiveness and suavity that gentleman was able to pour into his master's ear, there is little doubt that, knowing the royal character, he had also recommended that plenty of well–primed "cheer–leaders" be planted in the crowd. Thus, as it turned out, in uncanny fashion, the canny Blastus quite unintentionally brought his lord to destruction.

 

Instead of a throne being set for Herod, there was placed a bema, the judgement seat of a magistrate, as a hint beforehand that Herod meant to speak as a dictator. He had the whip hand, and would now use it. "Agrippa could play the heathen at Caesarea with as much zeal as he could play the Pharisee at Jerusalem" (Farrar).

 

He came out before the assembled princes and politicians accoutred in a stately picturesque robe of silver which shone impressively in the rays of the rising sun. Then he proceeded to make a speech that was intended to overawe and impress all who heard. Here Luke is careful to choose a word of double meaning — not only "oration," but also "clap trap"!.

 

The prepared audience reacted in ful­some fashion. "It is the voice of a god, and not of a man," they kept on shouting. And Herod Agrippa did nothing to dis­suade them, but basked in the sunshine of this palpable flattery. This was the man who, a few years earlier, had made almost superhuman efforts to persuade Claudius to countermand an order that the emperor's statue be installed in Jerusalem! And now this! When Peter received obeisance from a Roman centurion, he peremptorily said: "Get up. I also am a man." When Paul was worshipped as divine, he remonstrated: "Sirs, why do ye such things? We also are men of like passions with you." But Herod enjoyed getting drunk with wine of this sort. It was his most blissful moment.

[Resource Manager]

The stroke of God

 

But the next was his worst. The angel of the Lord, who saved Israel at Passover in Egypt, had done his work of saving Peter from his chains at this Passover.

 

And the destroying angel who smote the Egyptian firstborn now struck down this latest oppressor with a horrible disease. Herod was suddenly seized with violent internal pain. That assembly broke up in disorder. After five days of agony Herod died, "eaten of worms" like a rotten cabbage (Luke's word is an agricultural term).

 

This came to pass, Luke comments curtly, "because he gave not God the glory." The allusion to Psalm 115:1 was not at all out of context: "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy Name give glory ... Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands."

 

So died another evil member of an evil family.

 

"But (what a contrast!) the word of God kept on growing and multiplying" –the phrase quotes the description of Israel flourishing in spite of Egyptian oppression (Ex. 1:7).

 

Meantime Barnabas and Saul, who had concluded their duties of minister­ing aid to their Judaean brethren had already returned to Antioch. But they did not travel alone. Barnabas evidently persuaded his cousin John to accom­pany them: 'We are hoping to start missionary work overseas. Why don't you join us in this?' So he did. (Did they also take Peter with them?) And in token of dedication to a new phase of the Lord's work, John there and then (so the Greek text might suggest) took on a Gentile cognomen. Earlier, and sep­arately, both Barnabas and Saul had been called to a special stewardship, each of them by the Lord himself. Now they were joined by John Mark. Big developments were afoot.

 

 

Notes: 12:12–25

12. Praying, all night! Cp. Jesus before choosing the twelve (Lk. 6:12,13), and in Gethsemane. Consider also Acts 20: 7–11.

13. Hearken. Literally: obey; i.e. obey the summons. Was Peter calling out as well as knocking? Cp. 10:18.

14. Opened not the gate. Fuller's quaint comment: "Conceiving that Peter might better stand without the door than the people stay without the news." Contrast v.10.

15. Another alternative: God has again (as in 5:19) sent an angel to release him.

17. Beckoned Literally: down–shaking – a motion of the hand to quell noise or disturbance. So also in 13:16; 19:33; 21:40.

James and the brethren probably means his brethren (Mt. 13:55). There is an early tradition that Jesus bade the Twelve stay in Jerusalem for twelve years. They appear to have done this. Now they are all away from the Holy City.

Another place. If Rome, then surely there would be some hint of this in 28:21,22 or in Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

19. One feels rather sorry for these men. But perhaps it was what they deserved because of their treatment of Peter. Put to death is a possible paraphrase, but doubtful. "Led away" is precisely what the word means in every other place. Led away to death or to imprisonment. LXX supports the latter Gen. 40:3; 42:16 s.w.

From Judaea to Caesarea. Another admirable little demonstration of Luke's historical and geographical accuracy. At this time Caesarea did not reckon as belonging to Judaea (a fact only known from a hint in the Talmud).

20. Actual war between two provinces of the empire was out of question, but fiscal measures were not out of question.

Chamberlain. This is what the word means literally. But apparently it was used also for "treasurer, chancellor of the exchequer."

21. A set day. Josephus (Ant. 19.8.2) has a detailed account of this big occasion. He says it was a celebration for the safe return of Herod's friend Claudius from Britain.

23. After Herod's death there was a violent reaction of feeling against him.

25. Ministry. Cp. 6:1; Rom. 15:31.

[Resource Manager]

48. An important new Mission (13:1–3)

 

Although the Twelve were not represented in the ecclesia at Antioch, it was there that the next big development in the growth of the church took place, a step forward which would prove com­parable to Pentecost. Indeed, the comparison is rather striking:–

 

1. A list of the leading persons involved (1:13).
   
2. The Breaking of Bread and the prayers (1:14; 2:46; cp. "ministered to the Lord").
   
3. The Holy Spirit imparted (2:2–4).
   
4. A surge of vigorous preaching (2:14ff).

 

Of the five leaders at Antioch, the Greek text picks out three – Barnabas, Simeon, and Lucius — as prophets, and two – Manaen and Saul – as teachers.

 

Why fasting?

 

The pointed omission of Peter's name suggests that either that apostle did not flee to Antioch (12:17), or that this new selection of Barnabas and Saul took place before Peter's flight from Jerusa­lem.

 

The latter conclusion seems to be made more likely by the fact that the brethren were fasting. Yet Jesus had given his disciples only one reason for "afflicting one's soul" in such a way: "The days will come when the bride­groom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast in those days" (Mt. 9:15). That had happened over the weekend when Christ died, and pre­sumably the brethren reminded them­selves of this each Easter Friday and Saturday. And this was the time when Peter was in prison (12:3,4).

 

The names mentioned along with Barnabas and Saul provoke interesting speculations.

 

Simeon Niger

 

Simeon, called Niger, was very probably the same as Simon of Cyrene.

 

The details given about the latter in Mk. 15:21 strongly imply that the family was known to the readers of Mark's gospel; and Papias' declaration that Mark wrote in the first instance for Roman readers is regarded by practically all New Testa­ment scholars as dependable. Incident­ally, the nickname Niger (the darkie) is Latin, not Greek, and presumably was inserted by Luke because it would be appreciated by his Roman readers. If indeed this Simeon did come from North Africa, it is to be expected that he would have a swarthy skin (perhaps even with mixed Jewish and negro blood).

 

It is surely not coincidence that Paul's letter to Rome includes greetings to "Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine." Here every detail fits the present hypothesis. Simon of Cyrene was "the father of Alexander and Rufus." "Chosen in the Lord" is a superb reminder of how Simon, chosen by rough Roman soldiers to help with the cross of Jesus, was by that very act chosen to bear the cross all his days — and his family shared this light burden.

 

And if during those Antioch days Paul was given hospitality at that home (see ch.45), it is easy to see how he would come to think affectionately of Rufus's mother as though she were his own.

 

Also, in Romans 16, close to the allusion to Rufus there is mention of Lucius also (v.24), as though to match the mention together in Acts 13 of Simeon and Lucius of Cyrene.

 

Simeon must have been one of the prophets who came down from Jeru­salem to Antioch (11:27).

[Resource Manager]

Manaen

 

Another probable bit of instant bio­graphy concerns Manaen, "brought up with Herod the tetrarch" who had John the Baptist beheaded ("Studies in the Gospels", p.315). The Greek phrase has two possible meanings — either that Manaen's mother was also Herod's wet–nurse, or that the two boys were educated together, in the hope that Manaen would prove a wholesome in­fluence on the young prince. Almost certainly, the second meaning is what Luke intended: "The friend of the king" (1 Chr. 27:33), rather like the young men whom Rehoboam chose to rely on for advice (1 Kgs. 12:8).

 

Josephus (Ant. 15.10.5) has an inter­esting story that when Herod (the Great) was a youth, and with no hopes of power or influence, he encountered an Essene sage called Manachem (Manaen) who had a reputation for prophecy. This holy man clapped Herod on the back and fore–fold that one day he would be King of the Jews. When, against all expectation, this came about, Herod had this Manaen brought before him. "How long shall I reign? Ten years?" "Twenty – more than that, thirty!" was the oracular reply. So there was more royal favour than ever.

 

It has been surmised that by an act of grace the old man's grandson (another Manaen) was brought to court to share the education of young Herod Antipas.

 

When Manaen, now fifty or more, became a disciple is not known. Probably he, or else Chuza, Herod's steward (Lk. 8:3), was the nobleman whose sick child Jesus healed from a distance, (Jn. 4:46ff). It seems not unlikely that Manaen was the source of much of Luke's information about both Herod and John the Baptist(e.g.Lk.3:1,7–14,19,20; 9:7–9; 13:31,32; 23:8–12). He and Chuza were probably the two dis­ciples who had access to John in prison, and who were sent by him to Jesus (Lk. 7:19 RVm).

 

Saul

 

Last in the Antioch list of five comes Saul. He whose ability and accomplish­ments were far ahead of the others and must have already been recognized as such, was content to be ordinary, even though the Lord Jesus had assured him that he was to rank with Peter and the rest, an apostle to the Gentiles. Probably his old reputation still hung round him. But in any case he had learned the basic lesson from one of the Lord's parables: "When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage feast (cp. Jn. 3:29), sit not down in the highest room, lest... he that bade thee come and say to thee, Give this man place ... But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room ..." (Lk 14:8ff).

 

The narrative of the first missionary journey moves on through a mere seven verses (v.9, 13), and already Saul is dominating the scene; and so to the end of his days.

[Resource Manager]

Dedication

 

These men of God were occupied in the ecclesia, "ministering to the Lord" in prophesying and teaching and leading the Breaking of Bread service, when the Holy Spirit guided Simeon or Lucius to declare the Lord's will to the assembly:

 

"Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." The Greek text implies that the speaker was Jesus (cp. Rev. 2:7). The divine power of the Holy Spirit was at his command as it had been during the ministry. There is also the implication that both men had already been called by the Lord on some earlier occasion.

 

Regarding Saul there is no problem (22:21 takes care of this). But the only alternative to assuming that the earlier call of Barnabas is unrecorded is to accept the documented identification with the rich young ruler: "Sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor... and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22). "Studies in the Gospels," ch. 148.

 

It is worth noting that for overseas missions the Lord chose two of his most eminent and most gifted servants.

 

In the ecclesia the heavenly behest became an immediate imperative. They fasted again next day– Easter Saturday – and then without delay, after a service of laying on of hands (such as modern ecclesias choose to ignore entirely), the two missionaries were released (Gk.)

 

The text of Codex Beza says that the entire ecclesia took part in the service of dedication (cp. Num. 27:18,19). This is in harmony with other examples in Acts. The leaders of the ecclesia provided the initiative (under God), but there had to be ratification of their decision by the assembly (1:15,16,21–23; 6:2; 15:22).

 

It is interesting to note here how, like Peter, Saul had a gradual progress to office:

 

1. "God separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace" (Gal. 1:15).
   
2. "I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness... to open their (Gentile) eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light" (26:16,18).
   
3. "The Lord, even Jesus, .. . hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit" (9:17).
   
4. "Depart, for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles" (22:21).
   
5. "Separate unto me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them" (13:2). (See additional note on v.2).

 

 

Notes: 13 .1–3

1. Prophets and teachers. 2 Cor. 12:28 makes a careful distinction. Later, Paul was both: 1 Tim. 4:14; Acts 16:3. See also 1 Cor. 14:18.

2. Fasted. Alternatively, they were fasting to show their eagerness for the Second Coming.

]Separate. Used of consecration to God of priests, firstborn, sacrifices – and lepers. At this point the Gk. text has an untranslated particle implying climax: "Now is the time."

Separate unto me. Here the Gk. text includes de, a particle implying urgency, necessity.

3. Fasted and prayed. There is evidence that in the early church this was also done before a baptismal service.

Laid their hands on them. Timothy's experience also: 1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14.