BRUCE C WEARNE looks at what Acts 12 says about the demise of Herod Agrippa…
Now when day broke, (there) was no small panic among the soldiers over what had become of Peter. And so it was that when Herod had ordered a thorough search for him and could not find him, he examined the sentries and ordered that they be consigned to death row. And then he went down from Judea to Caesare’a, where he remained. Now it was Herod’s fury with the people of Tyre and Sidon; and they came to him in a body, and having persuaded Blastus, the one who served the king’s bedroom, asking for peace, because their country depended on the king’s country for their food. On the day appointed, Herod arrayed himself in his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered a public oration to them. And the mob shouted in unison, “This is the voice of a god, and not of a man!” And that was when the messenger of the Lord whacked him, for he just did not give God the glory; and was eaten by worms and he died. And the word of God still grew and multiplied. (Acts 12:18-24/transliteration by Bruce C Wearne)
PICTURE: Davide Guglielmo/www.freeimages.com
IN A NUTSHELL
Herod Agrippa died. His bloody reign came to an end.
The word Luke uses to describe how Herod was “whacked” by the Lord’s messenger [HEPATAXEN], is similar to the word used by him to describe how the messenger woke Peter [PATAXAS] from his slumber in prison. Apparently, the Lord’s messengers don’t act by half measures.
Why should Luke include the death of Agrippa in his story? We read about it in relation to Peter going into hiding. When we read “then he went down from Judea to Caesarea” we might easily think that Luke was writing about Peter going to hide at Cornelius’ house.
Luke is a skilful story-teller. The king’s demise is juxtaposed to the fugitive keeping his head down. The joyous moment of the Gentiles receiving the Gospel is presented to us as a event that happened under very tenuous circumstances. Life was difficult enough without the accusations of fellow believers brought by “the circumcision party”. Peter had good reason to hide; he had good reason when telling them to “keep quiet”.
“The Jews” seem to have had detailed knowledge about the way the (Jewish) believers in Jesus related to Gentiles in Gentile regions. Still, no matter who was king in Judaea, those believing in Jesus had a responsibility to tell all their neighbours, including Jewish ones, that the Promised One had come.
We cannot know for certain the exact chronology of these events. And we should not ignore what Luke inserts immediately after the record of Herod’s demise. The problems with interpreting different texts (for example, Acts and Galatians) and relating them to each other indicate Luke’s own literary problems as he structured what he had to tell. We know Paul confronted Peter in Antioch (Galatians 2:11). Was Luke “back-tracking” in his narrative at 11:19-26 to explain to us that Cornelius in Caesarea had already heard the Gospel sometime after the persecution began from the preaching to the Gentiles? If so, he is saying that God had arranged things so that the issue of table fellowship with Gentiles had already been decided well before the events described in Acts 15 or the writing of the letter to the Galatians. Peter’s later confrontation with Paul may have with confirmed the views he had been given in his dream at Joppa. But these life-preserving events confirm for all of them and us that the Good Shepherd cares for His sheep.
Agrippa was a dangerous thug. He murdered James and imprisoned Peter. But he was struck down. The Herodians and other groups that wanted to use their influence at court to oppose the Christian movement lost their leverage for a time. The administration reverted to a Roman Procurator. And word of God, did then what God Himself makes sure it always does: His word grew and multiplied.
