Acts 12:1-4 Bible Teaching

WELCOME
PRAYER
MUSIC
SILENCE

Acts 12.1-4
September 25th 2016
Milk

Okay, we left off last week at verse 26. Barnabas was sent to Antioch to preach the Good News to the Gentiles and the response was so great he departed and went to Tarsus to find and recruit Paul who had been sequestered there as a means to avoid being put to death by the Jerusalem Jews.
(verse 27 – let’s finish the chapter)

Acts 11:27 And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:
30 Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

Alright back to verse 27

And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.

Now, the word prophet is properly seen as someone who foretells future events.

Frequently in the New Testament epistles the term is used to describe teachers or instructors sent from God who apparently have no insight to any future events but merely proclaim the Good News or some aspect of it – these are essentially teachers.

And we find this more and more, as the New Testament unfolds, to be the case among the Gentiles.

But remember, the Book of Acts is a book of ebbing and flowing – the ebbing of the Old Covenant administration and the flowing in of the New.

Here we appear to have a prophetas of the Old Testament way – a man, in this case, who was foretelling of something that was about to fall upon the land in the future.

Luke here uses prophets in the plural so there was a number of them apparently that came into the land or Antioch. (verse 28)

28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

Now, many years from now this man is going to pop up again.

We’ll read about him in Acts 21:10 and 11
where he foretells the fate of Paul. There we read:

10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s belt, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this belt, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.”

It goes without saying that this man was a prophet of the Old Testament order and not simply a teacher in the New Testament sense.

We do not know if he was a Christian which is an interesting discussion because he was certainly led of the Holy Spirit.

What’s also intriguing is how Agabus conveyed his message about the coming calamity.

In his prophecy regarding Paul he took his belt and bound his own hands and feet and then prophesied that whoever owned that belt would likewise be taken by the Romans.

It was an illustration of sorts, led by the Holy Spirit, right?

Well listen again to verse 28:

28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

What does this mean, “he signified by the Spirit?”

a sign); from (Homer), Herodotus – to give a sign, to signify, to indicate: to make known by signification or wonder.

It means to describe with a degree of obscurity and uncertainty, not to declare the message in explicit exact language.

Some scholars believe that the word here is used to simply to foretell or predict but in accordance with other passages I tend to think that Abagas conveyed the message through some indication of the Holy Spirit – what it was we have no idea.

Maybe he held flowers in his hand that withered, or poured water from a cup that evaporated or maybe the sign of the Holy Spirit was internally delivered . . . we could come up with unlimited ideas.

The thing I want to point out to you is that it was in this very same way that the contents of the Book of Revelation were conveyed to John – not through words but through signs.

This is what the first verse says in the Book:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it (the Revelation – and this is the same Greek word used here to describe how Agabas conveyed his prophecy) by his angel unto his servant John.”

However the prophet Agabas conveyed the prophesy the message was:

“Signified by the Spirit” and said

A great dearth or famine was a coming – the King James reports that it would be throughout the world.

And maybe it was.

However, as the King James is accustomed to doing, the translators would use the term “world” or “whole world” when in fact the only areas effected would be those under the economy of THAT world and the Greek term used conveys this reality.

In other words, the Greek for actual whole world is Kosmos but the Greek to describe a geographical area is OIKO-MEN-AY, meaning, “the land, the geographical area, even the continent,” but not the whole world.

Often the translators are guilty of assigning world to the age of that people as well causing readers today to assume that there is going to be an end of the world when in reality there was only going to be an end of that age.

Anyway, Agabus prophesied that there was going to be a dearth or famine throughout all the land or area – meaning it would be extensive and not just confined to a single province or region.

In fact, though the famine was particularly severe in Judea, history tells us that it extended much farther.

This prediction was uttered not long after the conversion of Saul therefore it seems it would have been about the year 38 to 40 A.D.

Note too that Luke adds here –“which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.”

And here we have a rare instance where a New Testament writer affirms the fulfillment of a prophecy from the New Testament.

Obviously Luke wrote Acts after the fact and chose to note that what Agabas did was actually fulfilled.

When was it fulfilled? In the days of “Claudius Caesar,” who was a Roman emperor that began his reign A.D. 41 and reigned thirteen years.

This leader was poisoned by one of his wives (Agrippina) who wanted to raise her son Nero to the throne.

During his specific reign however no less than four different famines are mentioned by ancient writers, one of which was particularly severe in Judea, and this seems to be the one to which Agabus meant.

In the second year of the reign of Claudius a famine hit Rome.

It occurred apparently from some the difficulties of importing provisions from abroad and is mentioned by Dio, whose words are these: “There being a great famine, he (Claudius) not only took care for a present supply, but provided also for the time to come.”

(Dio, lib. Ix. pp. 671, 672.)

A second famine is mentioned as having been particularly severe in Greece. Of this famine Eusebius speaks in his Chronicon, p. 204:

“There was a great famine in Greece, in which a modius of wheat (about half a bushel) was sold for six drachms.”

This famine is said by Eusebius to have occurred in the ninth year of the reign of Claudius.

Then in the latter part of his reign, A. D. 51, there was another famine at Rome, mentioned by Suetonius, (Claud. cap. 18,) and by Tacitus, (Ann. xii. 43.) Referring to this Tacitus says, that “it was so severe, that it was deemed to be a Divine judgment.”

And then a fourth famine is mentioned as having occurred particularly in Judea. This is described by Josephus, (Ant. b. xx. chap. 2, 5.) and he said:

“A famine did oppress them at the time, (in the time of Claudius 😉 and many people died for the want of what was necessary to procure food withal. Queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus to bring a cargo of dried figs.”

This famine is described as having continued under the two procurators of Judea–Tiberius Alexander, and Cassius Fadus.

Fadus was sent into Judea on the death of Agrippa, about the fourth year of the reign of Claudius; and the famine, therefore, continued probably during the fifth, sixth, and seventh years of the reign of Claudius.

(See Josephus, Ant. b. xx. chap. 2, 5)

Finally, to the question – are there prophets today – not in the New Testament sense – but men or women foretelling the future?

Well, there are people who claim to be, let’s start there. And these range from corporate sions to men on the street screaming, “repent the end is near.”

In the sense of a prophet like unto Moses those days appear to have been utterly fulfilled by Christ.

In the sense of people having the gift of prophecy it seems so – as we have examples in the world.

The thing about a person’s prophesies carrying weight is they can never be wrong. If they say it will happen it must. Once wrong they are relegated to the position of false prophet.

So if anyone claims to be a prophet or have the gift of prophecy (meaning to foretell the future by the Spirit) whatever they say has to not only pan out every time but they must be in accordance with the rest of the Word of God – or their claims are no more reliable than anyone else’s.

(Verse 29)

29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:

Because of the way this is written it sounds like Agabus’s prophecy was centered on the areas in and around Judea – that this area would be hit hardest – and as a result the believers and disciples in Antioch

(29) . . . every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:

(30) Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

There was a need and it was signified through the prophet Agabas by the Holy Spirit in some manner.

Whatever manner it was the believers in Antioch believed and responded –

“every man according to his ability, then, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea”

Those who gave, gave as they personally determined according to what they believed they could do – and nothing more or less.

If they were able to give much they did; if they were UNABLE to give at all they didn’t.

Apparently they felt the need to materially help those brethren who sent men to spiritually aid them.

And the last verse of chapter 11 tells us who received the donations and who delivered them to them.

The elders of Jerusalem were the recipients and the donations were taken to them by the hand of Paul and Barnabas.

In Greek the term for older men is presbyters.

This is the first mention which we have in the New Testament of elders, or presbyters, in the Christian church.

Remember, the word literally means aged men but it was a name of an office in the Jewish synagogue.

In the early church it seems the tradition of placing the cares of things of elderly males was borrowed from the synagogue tradition and this is why Barnabas and Paul delivered the goods to their care.

We have made the term presbuteros (elder) a big deal today in the church, an official office or title but bottom line in Ancient Israel and in the Primitive Christian Church they were just the seasoned old men who could be trusted to make decisions regarding the affairs of the church.

So let’s push into chapter twelve now. Verse 1

Acts 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Acts 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.

Now about that time, or when – it seems -that the famine existed (or the time when Barnabas and Saul went up to Jerusalem – which was probably about the fifth or sixth year of the reign of Claudius.

“Herod the king.”

Now remember there a number of Herod’s in scripture for the name was merely a title. This was the King called Herod Agrippa.

The Syriac translation of the Bible makes this clear. Let me quickly rehearse to you who this Herod was as there were a number of them in the New Testament.

The Herodians all started with an Arabian of noble descent named Antipater. And in BC 47 Julius Caesar made this “wily Idumaean,” the procurator of Judea and he, in turn,
divided his territories up between his four sons – with Galilee becoming his son Herod’s.

Herod the Great was one bad dude with a very cruel disposition. As one source writes:

“He was brutish and a stranger to all humanity.”

He was the one who was alarmed by the tidings of one “born King of the Jews,” and he is the one who sent forth and “slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under”

He also restored the ruined temple of Jerusalem which was a work that started in B.C. 20 but was not completed till after Herod’s death – probably not till about A.D. 50.

He apparently died the year in which Jesus was born – around 4 BC.

Herod Agrippa was a grandson of Herod the Great, and one of the sons of Aristobulus, a son whom Herod put to death by strangling for treason. (Josephus, Ant., b. xviii, chap. 5.)

This left three sons whom Herod the Great divided his kingdom –

Philip had the land east of Jordan, between Caesarea Philippi and Bethabara,
Antipas had Galilee and Peraea,
and Archelaus had Judea and Samaria.

Archelaus, being accused of cruelty, was banished to Vienna in Gaul, and Judea (which he was over) was reduced to a province, and united with Syria.

When Philip died, this region was granted by the emperor Caligula to Herod Agrippa.

Herod Antipas (his brother) was driven as an exile also into Gaul, and then into Spain, and Herod Agrippa received also his tetrarchy.

It was under the reign of Claudius that the dominions of Herod Agrippa were enlarged even more.

When Caligula was slain, Agrippa was at Rome and had ingratiated himself into the favor of Caligula’s successor Claudius, who conferred on him also Judea and Samaria, so that his dominions were equal in extent to those of his grandfather, Herod the Great.

Because his domain was so great he received the title of King. As we will see he put the apostle James the elder to death and cast Peter into prison. Next week we’ll read of his end.

One final note on the Herod’s.

There was a Jewish political party who sympathized with the Herod’s in their general policy of government and in the social customs which they brought from Rome.

They were at one with the Sadducees in holding the duty of submission to Rome, and of supporting the Herod’s on the throne. These were known as the Herodians.

So . . .

Now about that time Herod Agrippa (the king) stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.

This is a figurative expression which means he in some way endeavored to oppress the church.

In what way? Luke says, “to vex.” The Greek, KaKoo – to harm, hurt or trouble.

Certain (or some) of the church. Luke now tells us which some saying:

2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

And here we witness the first Apostolic martyrdom – that of James the Greater (as opposed to James the Less).

James the brother of John was the son of Zebedee rather than the son of Alpheus. This persecution was foretold by Jesus when He said:

Mark 10:35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.
36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

And so the hammer has fallen – on James first (verse 3) – baptized with the baptism of the LORD.
3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

We learn a lot about Herod Agrippa from this. He didn’t act from a sense of right or wrong he acted because he saw it pleased the Jews.

It was for personal or political gain. For popularity. People pleasing.

Josephus, in his Antiquitis., b. xix., chap. 8, 3 writes:

“This king (Herod Agrippa) was by nature very beneficent, and liberal in his gifts, and very ambitious to please the people with such large donations; and he made himself very illustrious by the many expensive presents he made them. He took delight in giving, and rejoiced in living with good reputation.”

As a pleaser of people and a seeker of favor among the masses Herod, after filling James the Greater decides to go after Peter, Or . . .

“To take Peter also.”

How can we say this? Where maybe James was easy prey (for whatever reason) Peter was one of the most conspicuous public apostles – maybe even obnoxious men in the primitive church – relative to the world. I think he was only bested in being hated by Paul.

It was natural, therefore, that he would be the next object of attack. It was the days of “unleavened bread,” or the Passover or the seven days immediately succeeding the passover during which time it was required that no bread was to be eaten with leaven or yeast.

This was the time that Herod chose to apprehend Peter. Why this period of time we don’t know but being a people pleaser what better time to apprend a noted Christian than when the area is full of Jews.

4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

So when he put him in prison four quaternions of soldiers were assigned to keep him.

Why? During the solemnity of this religious festival it would have been improper to have engaged in the trial of an apparent criminal as the minds of the people was supposed to be on the things of God.

So Herod Agrippa had him held in custody until the passover had ended.

A quaternion was four soldiers so with four being assigned there were sixteen men assigned to keep Peter in custody.

Because the Romans divided the night into four watches there were four guards watching over him at any given time. As we will read two were with him inside the prison and two were outside guarding the door.

The message sent to the Jews by Herod Agrippa seems to have been, “Rest assured, I will deliver this apostle of the Nazarene to you!”

One more point on this verse – let me make it by reading it again:

4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

A number of things to point out here with the King James use of Easter here.

First, I really love the King James but it has a few really messed up things in it – with this being one of them.

The use of the term Easter.

There is a group of King James Only-ists out there and they justify the use of Easter in what I feel are some real leaps. Truth be told, the translation from the Greek Pas-khah to Easter is errant.

Which is why almost every other translation of this word in other versions of the Bible remain true and call it Passover.

The word Easter is admittedly a festival observed by many Christian churches in honor of the resurrection of the Savior. But the original has absolutely no reference to that NOR is there any evidence that the primitive or early church observed any such celebration anciently.

The word “Easter” is of Saxon origin, and is derived from “Eostre,” the goddess of love, or the Venus of the North, in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by the pagans in the month of April.

Of course this festival coincided with the Passover of the Jews, which coincided with a feast Christians held in honor of the resurrection of Christ and so by the time King James said “give me a Bible” Eostre was synonymous with passover, which was synonymous with the feast held in celebration of Jesus resurrection.

When Bible translators Coverdale and Tindale came upon the word Pas-khah they wrote Easter and that is how it crept into the Bible today.

I am a bit of a walking dichotomy because when it comes to any holiday I am both ambivalent and supportive. On the one hand every day is like another in my brain but I understand the need for some to celebrate certain times and seasons and do not begrudge them in the name of piety.

Piety comes from within, not without, and if the human heart rejoices in Easter, or Halloween or Christmas let it be. We all stand or fall before our God individually.

Most religious reformers and/or restorationists, seeing or learning about the pagan historicity of modern holidays have tried to eliminate the celebration of them from those who follow them.

On the other hand others have taken the celebrations and in Jesus name have used them to promote the Good News.

I would suggest, as a teacher of the Word, that the more God there is in our celebrations – every celebration – even our weekly TGIF’s – the better – all the while remembering the freedom and liberty we all share because of Christ.

Having said this let’s wrap today up – since we are on this subject – with what the word says and I bring you to one of the most amazing chapters on how Christians ought to live (and let others live).

Romans 14:1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.
2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.
3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.
4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.
7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself.
8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.
9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written: “As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.
14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.
16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil;
17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.
20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.
21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.
22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

And let’s open it up to questions or comments.