Acts 12:11

But as to those matters in regard to which our belief or disbelief, and indeed their truth or supposed truth or falsity, are of no importance whatever, so far as attaining the kingdom of God is concerned: to make a mistake in such matters is not to be looked on as a sin, or at least as a very small and trifling sin. In short, a mistake in matters of this kind, whatever its nature and magnitude, does not relate to the way of approach to God, which is the faith of Christ that “worketh by love.” For the “mistake pleasing to parents” in the case of the twin children was no deviation from this way; nor did the Apostle Peter deviate from this way, when, thinking that he saw a vision, he so mistook one thing for another, that, till the angel who delivered him had departed from him, he did not distinguish the real objects among which he was moving from the visionary objects of a dream; nor did t …

“ At that time,” of course meaning the time immediately following: for this is the custom of Scripture. And he well says that Herod “the king” (did this): this was not he of Christ’s time. Lo, a different sort of trial, and mark what I said in the beginning, how things are blended, how rest and trouble alternate in the whole texture of the history, not now the Jews, nor the Sanhedrim, but the king. Greater the power, the warfare more severe, the more it was done to obtain favor with the Jews. “And,” it says, “he slew James the brother of John with the sword:” (taking him) at random and without selection. …

(Recapitulation.) “At that time,” it says, “Herod the king stretched forth his hands to afflict certain of the Church.” ( v. 1 .) Like a wild beast, he attacked all indiscriminately and without consideration. This is what Christ said: “My cup indeed ye shall drink, and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized, shall ye be baptized.” ( Mark x. 39 .) ( b ) “And he killed James the brother of John.” ( v. 2 .) For there was also another James, the brother of the Lord: therefore to distinguish him, he says, “The brother of John.” Do you mark that the sum of affairs rested in these three, especially Peter and James? ( a ) And how was it he did not kill Peter immediately? It mentions the reason: “it was the day of unleavened bread:” and he wished rather to make a display ( ἐκπομπεὕσαι ) with the killing of him. “And when he saw it pleased the Jews.” ( v. …

“So Peter was kept in the prison,” etc. ( v. 5 .) They, being at large, were at prayer: he, bound, was in sleep. “And he wist not that it was true.” ( v. 9 .) If he thought it was true that was happening, he would have been astonished, he would not have remembered (all the circumstances): but now, seeming to be in a dream, he was free from perturbation. “When,” it says, “they were past the first and the second ward”, see also how strong the guard was, “they came unto the iron gate.” ( v. 10 .) “Now know I that the Lord hath sent His Angel.” ( v. 11 .) Why is not this effected by themselves? (I answer) By this also the Lord honors them, that by the ministry of His Angels he rescues them. Then why was it not so in the case of Paul? There with good reason, because the jailer was to be converted, whereas here, it was only that the Apostle should be released. ( ch. xvi. …