Acts 12:17Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Thus they had been told, “Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this Life.” They heard this and immediately obeyed (Acts 5:20-21).

But the angel did not say that to him. Rather, after bringing him out by night, he withdrew in silence and gave him the opportunity to depart.

This also took place so that we might learn that many things then were done in a human manner, and so that he would not again be exposed to danger.

And so that they would not say after his departure, “It is his angel,” they first express this beforehand. Then they see him himself, in refutation of such a thought.

If this had been an angel, he would not have knocked at the door, nor would he have withdrawn “to another place.” The fact that this did not happen by day also assures them of it.

Therefore let us not conceal the wonders of God. Let us strive to make them known, both for our own benefit and for the edification of others.

Indeed, if Peter is admirable when he wished to be bound, he is still more admirable when he did not depart before first reporting everything to his own.

“And he said,” it says, “Tell these things to James and the brethren.” Why does he command them to tell it? So that they might rejoice and not grieve.

He also wanted those others to learn it from these, and not these from those. Thus he cared for the humbler members.

In the Church there is an ancient tradition from the second century, that the Lord Himself did not command the apostles to leave Jerusalem before twelve years had passed. According to Eusebius, this tradition was found in Apollonius's work against the Montanists and in other books.

At this time the Church of Jerusalem, after eight years of peace since Stephen's death, was again disturbed, though not for long. King Herod Agrippa, to whom the emperor Claudius entrusted the rule of Judea itself, wished to display his zeal for strict observance of the law.

His conduct was not always consistent with this zeal. He also adapted himself to the Roman way of life, in order to win the favor of the Gentiles.

Yet, so as not to arm the Jews against himself, he rose up against the preachers of the new teaching. He ordered the Apostle James, the elder son of Zebedee and brother of the Apostle John, to be put to death.

During the feast of Pascha in the year 44, he also cast Peter into prison. His intention was, after the feast, to deal with him as he had dealt with James.

But Peter was freed from prison by the special aid of God. At the prayer of the Church for him, an angel loosed his chains, brought him out of the locked prison, and led him into the city.

Thus he saved from death the chief apostle, whose life was still needed for the Church. Soon afterward Herod himself died, struck by an angel in punishment for his actions against the Church of Christ.

His death restored peace to the Christians of Jerusalem.

Paul and Barnabas came to Jerusalem during these disturbances. Therefore they were probably there only a very short time, could do nothing significant, and soon returned to Antioch.

The words καί έκείνον τόν καιρόν in Acts 12:1, however, do not define the time precisely.

But when they afterward went to the gate, opened it, and saw Peter with their own eyes, they became convinced that it truly was he. Yet they continued to marvel at such an unexpected event.

Then Peter told them the story of his wondrous deliverance through the angel. He commanded them to inform James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh and bishop of the Church of Jerusalem (Gal 1:19; Gal 2:9).

They were also to inform the other brethren who were not present there, of course so that they would no longer be anxious about him.

Since it had to be expected that Herod would use every means to find Peter and seize him again, Peter withdrew from Jerusalem. He did this so as not to expose his life to danger vainly and uselessly.

Having gone out: probably not only from the house, but also from the city. Prudent caution required this, and it was fully consistent with the Lord's own instruction to the apostles (Mt 10:23).

He went to another place, which the writer of Acts does not name. “He did not tempt God and did not expose himself to danger, for they did even this only when they were commanded” (Chrysostom; compare Theophylact).

There is an ancient tradition that Peter was in Rome in the first years of Emperor Claudius's reign. If this is correct, then the most convenient time for such a journey by Peter was precisely the time now under consideration.

This was, in all probability, the year 44 after the Nativity of Christ, after the Jewish Pascha, at the beginning of April, and the fourth year of Claudius's reign.

After this departure to another place, Peter is not mentioned in Acts until the Apostolic Council in chapter 15, when he again appears in Jerusalem.

This means several years passed, during which he could have made even so distant a journey as one to the capital of the worldwide monarchy of that time.

His zeal to preach Christ in this center of the life of the world then may have drawn him there.

Then he left Mary's house, and even the city of Jerusalem, as many suppose. He did so in order not to expose himself and others who might remain with him to the greatest danger (see Mt 10:23).

There is a supposition that at this time the Apostle Peter set out for Rome. This was around the year 44 after the Nativity of Christ.

This is why, they say, nothing more is written about him in Acts until the Apostolic Council, when he again appeared in Jerusalem in chapter 15.

That was already in the year 51. Thus he had sufficient time to preach in Rome, the center of life for many peoples ruled from Rome and represented there in large numbers.

For Peter, the first among these were the Jews, who often arrived there from all the ends of the world then known.

Herod committed his crimes by relying on Roman power. From that same power one could seek shelter and protection for the innocent.

Thus, by his departure, Peter could have aroused the greatest astonishment in Herod's soul. If Herod learned that Peter was staying in Rome, fear could have restrained his frenzy at least somewhat.

The detailed precision of the account of the Apostle Peter's wondrous rescue from prison, and its extraordinary vividness, compel one to suppose that its source was not written, as many think, but oral: the testimony of an eyewitness.

An event can be described this way only under the impression of direct observation, or from the words of an impressionable witness who had a living interest in it.

This witness is indicated by the sacred book itself in the person of the Apostle Paul, who was traveling to Jerusalem at that time (see Acts 11:30; 12:25), or John Mark (see Acts 12:12).

St. Luke was undoubtedly with John Mark for some time near the Apostle Paul (see Col 4:10; Phil 1:24; 2 Tim 4:1).

John Mark had reason to be especially interested in the wondrous event involving the Apostle Peter, and, so to speak, to live through it.

Believers had gathered in his mother's house for prayer during the difficult time of persecution against the apostles James and Peter. No doubt they grieved with all their soul over those hard times.

The Apostle Peter came there directly after his liberation from prison.

“In general, if the unevenness of the account in Acts, in scope and content, is to be explained by the quantity and quality of the material in the sacred writer's hands, then one or another degree of detail is better explained by oral rather than written sources.”