Acts 11:1

Act_11:1-18. The Judæo-Christians blame Peter. He makes his defence at Jerusalem

1. the apostles and brethren … heard] The news reached them before the return of St Peter to Jerusalem.

that the Gentiles had also received the word of God] At this news, had there been no additional information about Peter’s eating with Cornelius, the disciples would have rejoiced, and would have welcomed this further spread of the word, as they did (Act_8:14) the conversion of the Samaritans, but to some, who were not only Christians, but strict observers of Jewish ritual, it was a cause of offence that Peter had consented to become the guest of a Gentile.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_11:1-8

And the apostles and brethren … heard … And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him.

The dispute in the early Church

Learn--

1. That even among Gods saints no one has been without blemish and folly.

2. That we must not put down the faults of the saints to wickedness.

3. That when we truly recognise and experience the universal love of God we shall be able to judge better of many events in Gods kingdom though they occur without the limits of our own Church. (Biblical Museum.)

Rents in the primitive Church

These are here represented--

I. For humility--in order to observe from them the power of the enemy, who never neglects to sow tares among the wheat.

II. For comfort--in order to recognise in them that nothing new befalls the Church in the divisions of the present day.

III. For doctrine--in order to see from them how the rents are to be healed by the power of evangelical truth and love. (K. Gerok.)

The ecclesiastical opposition

We have here--

I. A striking imperfection in the first Church. The apostles and brethren heard; and the point to be considered is the highly improper state of mind which the information produced. Instead of rejoicing at the event, and congratulating Peter, they called him to account as a criminal. This imperfection teaches us--

1. That antiquity does not confer infallibility. There are churches which are constantly referring us to the ancient and patristic for the final settlement of theological questions. Nay, there are men of antiquarian proclivities in every Church who refer to the past for the unerring and the perfect. Now, the fact that the Apostolic Church was imperfect exposes this folly.

2. That Christianity does not perfect its disciples at once. Some of these men had attained the rank of apostles, and yet had many errors to correct and habits to overcome. Christian excellence is a growth only, the germ of which is given at conversion; and unless the soil is well looked after, and the noxious weeded out, it will continue a frail and imperfect thing. Christians must grow in grace, etc.

II. A great man censured for a feeble work; which teaches us--

1. That Peter was not regarded as an infallible dictator in spiritual matters. The circumstance that he was called to account by the whole body of Christians goes against the assumption that he was vicar of Christ--the pope. Call no man rabbi: one is your Master, even Christ.

2. That mens works must not be determined by the judgment of contemporaries. The best works have generally met with contemporary censure. Men ahead of their time awaken envy and alarm. The greatest theologians have been the heretics of their age, and the greatest heroes its martyrs.

III. An inspired apostle conciliating his brethren. There was nothing of the haughtiness of modern primacy about Peter. He might have heard in silence and withdrawn in contempt, or denounced their ingratitude and narrowness. Instead of that he listens attentively, and offers a calm, generous, dignified reply.

1. He recites facts--those of the previous chapter, with the exception of his sermon which was productive of such mighty results. He bases his defence, not on what he said, but on what God did, which--

(1) Indicates his own modesty;

(2) rebukes vanity in preachers.

2. He makes an appeal (Act_11:17). This is the logic of his address--God had unmistakably indicated His will; who was he that he should oppose it?

III. A glorious victory over an old prejudice (Act_11:18).

1. They heartily acquiesced in the fact: They held their peace, feeling that the apostle had done the right thing.

2. They devoutly rejoiced in the fact: They glorified God. That which had pained them now filled them with delight.

3. They joyfully declared the fact: Then hath God, etc.

(1) Salvation is the life of man.

(2) Repentance is essential to salvation.

(3) Repentance is the gift of God through the gospel ministry. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The best testimony of the servant of God against opposition and misapprehension

1. The Divine injunction of which he is conscious.

2. The eyes of men under which he acted.

3. The tranquillity of spirit with which he can vindicate himself.

4. The fruits of his work to which he is permitted to point. (K. Gerok.)

Religious contention

is the devils harvest. (Fontaine.)

Sectarianism, the strife of brethren

I recollect on one occasion conversing with a marine, who gave me a good deal of his history. He told me that the most terrible engagement he had ever been in was one between the ship to which he belonged and another English vessel, when, on meeting in the night, they mistook each other for enemies. Several persons were wounded and both vessels were much damaged by the firing. When the day broke great and painful was the surprise to find the English flag hoisted from both ships. They saluted each other, and wept bitterly together over their mistake. (W. Williams.)

Bigotry, Narrowness of

What a circumstance is that, that in 1624, at the request of the University of Paris, and especially of the Sorbonne, persons were forbidden by an arret of Parliament, on pain of death, to hold or teach any maxim contrary to ancient or approved authors, or to enter into any debate but such as should be approved by the doctors of the faculty of theology. So, again, after the telescope had been invented, many of the followers of Aristotle positively refused to look through the instrument because it threatened the overthrow of their masters doctrines and authority; and so when Galileo had discovered the satellites of Jupiter some persons were infatuated enough to attempt to write down these unwelcome additions to the solar system. (Paxton Hood.)

Bigotry is concealed selfishness

Sir Humphry Davy, when he introduced his safety lamp, which has saved so many valuable lives, declined to take out a patent for it, saying that his sole object was to serve the cause of humanity. What of men who claim prescriptive rights to the gospel of Jesus Christ! (W. Baxendale.)

Peter reports to the Church

1. The importance of the centurions baptism rested not simply on its being the issue of a series of Divine interpositions, but on its being accepted as the commencement of a new era. Its recognition by the Church, however, hinged on its having been brought about by God. Hence Peters narrative was necessary before the new conditions of membership could be welcomed.

2. The news reached Jerusalem before Peter, and in an imperfect form, viz., that Peter had been treating uncircumcised men ecclesiastically and socially as though they were circumcised. Why they did not know, and hence they hardly knew whether to be glad or vexed.

3. Peter gave his report when they of the circumcision were disputing with him, i.e., those who afterwards came to form, and had when Luke was writing formed, the Judaizing party. The strong Jewish prejudice which was to work such mischief must have already been latent in the minds of many baptized Jews. This was the first occasion on which that prejudice was stirred into activity. The apostles would have inquired into the spiritual side of the transaction--the reception of Christ by heathen--whereas the question raised was merely that of eating. Nor would the heads of the Church have used the phrase rendered softly men uncircumcised, an untranslated expression of rude and displeased contempt.

4. Peter met the question with a calm and careful narrative of facts. It can hardly fail to startle those who know how his name has been used to cover the most unbounded claims, that he should be reduced to justify his apostolic action. Yet this is in perfect accord with the whole New Testament. The Church is never represented as a close oligarchy, much less as an empire with an infallible head. Before the assembly of the faithful this Prince of the apostles, this Rock Man, to whom Jesus had given the keys, was content to plead, and that on a matter which could justify itself, and to disputatious brethren whom he might have treated with contempt.

5. Peter passed over matters already known to detail the circumstances which prepared him for the reception of Cornelius--the vision, the coincident arrival of the messengers, the monition of the Holy Ghost--a threefold strand spun by a celestial hand, which drew him with a force he dared not withstand. So far the incident had been personal; now came the corroborative evidence of the six brethren who were witnesses that the Masters promise to baptize His disciples with the Divine Spirit was fulfilled. Nay, more; God had bestowed that Spirit on the original disciples, not because of their Jewish birth or circumcision, but simply because they had believed on Christ. To the Gentiles, therefore, who believed had now come the very same free gift, to prove that neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision. In Peters words there lies, as in a seed, the whole doctrine of free grace and justification by faith, and no better commentary on them can be found than in Gal_2:15-16, which was addressed to Peter when he renounced for a time the position that he here defends.

6. The general enthusiasm over this new-won freedom and the happy consciousness of a wider brotherhood broke forth in praise. It might have been hoped that the Church would now pass from its subordination to the Mosaic law into the spiritual freedom of Christ. Alas! the rise of a Gentile Church at Antioch soon after came to be viewed with rivalry, and a synod at Jerusalem could not compose the strife. Upon Peters vacillation Paul became the rock which turned aside from the Gentile Churches a current which would have swept Christianity into Mosaic legalism and exclusiveness. Yet in their convictions the two apostles were one.

7. The limitation which for so many centuries confined Gods favour to one tribe was one which must have forever shut out us and our fathers. In His wise pleasure He bad elected Israel, and might have let the election stand. But the very election contemplated ultimate catholicity. Israel was made a guarded focus of light just that it might one day enlighten the Gentiles. But, in spite of their prophets, they kept to their tribes what God had given to mankind. Thus it came that the grace of life had to tear itself away from their grip to overspread the globe. Yet it was by the hands of Jews after all that the grace of God was first conveyed to Gentiles in Caesarea, and by Jewish missionaries that the gospel has at length reached ourselves. (J. O. Dykes, D. D.)

Peter to Jewish Christians

1. This differs from the previous speeches of the apostle (except the first), in that it is not an appeal to men to become Christians, but an explanation to Christians of a fresh course of action taken in the service of Christ.

2. While Peter tarried at Caesarea the apostles and brethren heard with surprise of this unexpected victory of the gospel. He was well aware of the necessity for a full explanation, and therefore went straight to Jerusalem, and with excellent judgment took the six Jewish Christians from Joppa who had baptized the believing Gentiles, who could corroborate his story.

3. They that were of the circumcision contended with him, not apparently about the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, or even their baptism, but about his eating with them. They were displeased that an apostle had broken a tradition of strict Judaism.

4. Such a condition of mind we regard with wonder and pity; and yet something very like it is far too common in modern Christendom. Who has not seen Christian faith miserably united with small-minded prejudices? And this also we see, that narrowness of sympathy goes with dulness of perception. These Jews could not see anything more important than the question whether Peter did well or ill in sitting at table with the uncircumcised. So now: the more that men make of external restriction in religion, the more they incapacitate their minds for appreciating what is spiritual and permanent. Note--

I. The position taken by even the leading apostle.

1. The name of Peter has been used to cover the claim of supremacy advanced by the Pope. But here we see that the brethren were not afraid to contend with him; and he made no attempt to silence the objectors by dint of authority, but patiently explained his action till he won their approval. Is it not plain that there was no such thing as Popedom known to St. Peter? There was not even oligarchic government by the apostles. The Church had leaders and guides; but the wisdom of Christ was imparted to the whole body, not to a few conspicuous members only.

2. It is not well that anyone should reckon himself above question from the brethren. It is quite possible that they may find fault through ignorance; but in such a case Christs servant must not give way to irritation, but calmly explain what they have misunderstood. Let him tell the unvarnished truth, and leave it to the heavenly Master to vindicate him.

II. The best way to remove misunderstandings among brethren.

1. Nine-tenths of the fault finding comes of defective information. The objectors here knew but very partially what Peters conduct had been, and none of the reasons. They heard that he had been living among Gentiles, but nothing of the visions or of the spiritual results. They certainly laid themselves open to a sharp reproof. But the apostle did not even make complaint. He wished to conciliate their better judgment, and preserve peace in the Church.

2. This, too, conveys, a most valuable lesson to those who find their course of action called into question. It will be often found that fault finders proceed on most inaccurate information; and, by doing so, they lay themselves open to retort. But the object of Christs servant should be not to triumph over an unreasonable brother, but to gain victories for the truth and maintain peace and charity.

III. The most effective answer to sticklers on points of order.

1. St. Peter did not enter into an argument upon the permanence of those restrictions which had separated the Jews from the Gentiles. He was himself scarcely prepared for such an argument, though a new light had been cast into his mind by the vision. No such light, however, had fallen on those at Jerusalem; and it would have been worse than useless to argue. Peter took them on ground which no Christian could call in question. As the Word of life was being preached to the Gentiles the Holy Ghost fell on them, just as on the Jews at Pentecost. Did not that one momentous fact settle all questions, overcome all misgivings?

2. This way of handling a difficulty makes short work with many Church controversies about holy orders, correct ritual, and the like. In ways that we consider exceptional, and through the labours of persons whose ordination has but an uncertain validity, thousands have been converted from sin to righteousness. This seems to us to be matter of fact which only a desperate bigotry can ignore? Surely when we see that sinners are turned from their evil ways our simple duty is to acknowledge the work of God whenever and wherever He pleases to work and give Him thanks.

IV. The true place and justification of baptism. The Gentiles at Caesarea having been baptized with the Holy Ghost, it was impossible to deny to them baptism with water. Indeed, there are not two baptisms, but one, having an outer form and inner sense. The former requires water, the latter the grace of the Holy Spirit. Superstition holds that the former always involves the latter, and therefore urges people to be baptized, or to have their infants baptized, in order that by that rite they may receive the Holy Ghost. This is Christening of which the Bible knows nothing. It is enough to trace the dispensation of baptism through these early chapters. At Jerusalem they that received the Word of salvation were baptized. At Samaria they that believed the good tidings were baptized. On the road to Gaza the Ethiopian treasurer first received Philips preaching of Jesus, and then was baptized. At Damascus, Saul, through the intervention of Ananias, was filled with the Holy Ghost. Then he arose, and was baptized. So here. Conclusion:

1. Peters speech had a marked success. The Jewish brethren glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance into life. Would that they had cherished this mood! What controversies would have been avoided! What trouble might have been spared to Paul!

2. These disciples had a clear conception of repentance--

(1) In its origin as the gift of Gods grace;

(2) in its issue as unto life. And with this doctrine ought the fallow ground of mens hearts to be broken. It is Gods command; it is Gods gift; it is Gods encouragement: Turn ye; why will ye die? (D. Fraser, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 11:1-3. The apostles and brethren heard — To their great surprise; that the Gentiles had also received the word of God — That not only the Jews who were dispersed in the Gentile countries, and the Gentiles who were proselyted to the Jewish religion, but that the uncircumcised Gentiles also themselves, with whom it had hitherto been thought unlawful to have any fellowship, had heard and received the gospel, and had even been baptized and received into church communion, without being required to submit to circumcision and the observances of the Mosaic law; intelligence this which alarmed them exceedingly, as they had not yet been made acquainted with the particular circumstances attending the affair. And when Peter was come to Jerusalem — From Cesarea; they that were of the circumcision — Those Jewish converts who still retained a veneration for the ceremony of circumcision, and thought it to be of perpetual obligation; contended with him — About what he had done. There seems to be no reason here to except any of the believing Jews (unless, perhaps, the apostles) from this contention; for they were all zealous of the law, and of their customs, and could not endure to hear that any Jew should act contrary to them, Act 21:20-21; and Peter himself had been of that mind till he had received the vision, (see chap, Act 10:28,) and even after the vision withdrew himself from the believing Gentiles for fear of the Jews, Gal 2:12; and they of the dispersion preached to the Jews only, Act 11:19. We may observe here, also, that these Jewish believers had no idea of the supremacy, and much less of the infallibility, of Peter; for otherwise they would not have dared thus to rise up against him, or to can his actions in question. See Whitby.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. Peter’s Defence for Baptizing the Uncircumcised, Act_11:1-18.

The question now comes, How will the Mother Church at Jerusalem receive the announcement of Peter’s new position on the great question stated in our note on Act_10:1? That city has some interest in the matter, for the reception of the Gentiles is to be completed by her own destruction by blood, fire, and plough. (See note on Mat_24:2.)

1. The apostles—While the Church was dispersed the apostles stood firm. (See notes on Act_8:1-14; Act_9:32.) They are probably all, certainly James and John, still resident at Jerusalem, and all interested in the present matter.

Gentiles… received—The favourable side of the news comes first, namely, that Gentiles were becoming Christian, not so prominently that they were baptized without being circumcised. The general feeling doubtless was that expressed in the last half of Act_11:18.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act_11:1. The apostles.—Peter and John (Act_8:14), with James (Act_12:2), and possibly the rest of the Twelve. The brethren.—The body of disciples.

Act_11:2. They that were of the circumcision.—In the first instance all the Judæan disciples who were Jews, afterwards a party in the Church who contended for circumcision as a term of Christian communion (Php_3:3; Col_4:11; Tit_1:10).

Act_11:3. Didst eat with them.—See on Act_10:28.

Act_11:4. Rehearsed the matter from the beginning and expounded it by order.—Better, having begun, expounded the matter unto them in order.

Act_11:5-10.—Peter’s account differs from Luke’s in only minor details. (See “Homiletical Analysis.”)

Act_11:11.—Mentions that Cornelius’s ambassadors were three in number (Act_10:19), and Act_11:12 that Peter’s companions were six (Act_10:33).

Act_11:13.—Represents Cornelius as calling his mysterious visitor an angel, whereas Luke’s account makes the centurion speak of him as a man (Act_10:30). The word men, an insertion from Act_10:5, should be omitted.

Act_11:14.—Adds an item of the angel’s message not before mentioned.

Act_11:15.—The clausule as I began to speak contradicts not that in Luke’s account “while Peter yet spake” (Act_10:44), but draws attention to the shortness of the interval which passed before the Holy Ghost descended. In the beginning = on the day of Pentecost, about ten years before: see on Act_11:26.

Act_11:17. Whether the antecedent to who believed πιστεύσασιν is us (A. and R.V., Bengel, Meyer), or them and us (Alford, Hackett), or them only (Plumptre), cannot be decided; but in each case the sense is the same.

Act_11:18. Glorified God.—Correct if the reading is ἐδόξασαν (Westcott and Hort, R.V.); if ἐδόξαζον be preferred (A.V., Alford, Hackett), then the rendering should be kept glorifying God, a continuous act.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_11:1-18

Peter’s Report to the Church at Jerusalem; or, the Admission of the Gentiles vindicated

I. The serious indictment preferred against Peter.—

1. The occasion.

(1) The tidings that had reached the apostles and brethren in Judæa that the Gentiles also had received the word of God (Act_11:1). So remarkable a phenomenon was not likely to remain unknown to the Church leaders in Jerusalem. Nor is it readily conceivable that tidings so glorious should have given rise to dissatisfaction in any right-thinking bosom. Yet such actually appears to have been the case.

(2) The return of Peter to the metropolis, which was dictated not by any peremptory summons issued to him by his colleagues to defend before them the action he had taken—an assertion destitute of even the slightest evidence—but by a natural desire to explain what had taken place and his relation thereto (Act_11:2).

2. The movers. “They that were of the circumcision”—i.e., the Jewish Christians as distinguished from the Gentile (see Act_10:45)—the party in general and not an inner circle of them more zealous for the rite than their fellows (Lechler). Such a party afterwards arose (Col_4:11; Tit_1:10); here its first indications are observed. At this stage the whole Jerusalem Church, being composed of Jews, felt disposed to emphasise the importance and obligation of circumcision.

3. The gravamen. Not that the apostle had preached the gospel to the Gentiles—which, in face of Christ’s command, could hardly have been pronounced a fault (Mat_27:19)—or that he had baptised them, and so received them into the Christian Church, but that he had done so without subjecting them to circumcision. As yet the apostles and brethren do not so express their thoughts, but merely charge Peter with having violated (traditional) Mosaism by entering into friendly intercourse, and holding house and table fellowship with the Gentiles (Act_11:3).

II. The triumphant vindication offered by Peter.—

1. The frankness with which it was given. Not standing upon his dignity as chief among the apostles (primus inter pares), or resenting their interference with what was so unmistakably a work of God, but recognising their right to have their difficulties stated and, if possible, removed, doubtless also appreciating their perplexity concerning what conflicted so strangely with their traditional beliefs, Peter began and expounded the matter in order to them. A Christian of the right spirit—whether a public official or a private member in the Church—will not fail to exhibit the like anxiety, by means of a frank explanation, to remove any offence or stumbling block which his personal behaviour may have placed in the way of his weaker brethren (Rom_14:15).

2. The fulness with which it was given. The main particulars of the story were related.

(1) The vision he had himself beheld in Joppa (5–10), his own account differing from Luke’s only in minor details, such as the omission of all mention of the time when the vision occurred and of the hunger which preceded it, saying nothing about seeing heaven opened, and adding that the sheet appeared to come even unto him, and that it contained “wild beasts” (Act_11:6) as well as other animals.

(2) The arrival of Cornelius’s messengers, though he did not at all mention the centurion’s name, or at that stage in his tale allude to the vision which had prompted the centurion to despatch his embassy (Act_11:11).

(3) The inward whispering of the Spirit which had directed him to accompany the strange men from Cæsarea (Act_11:12), which prompting he obeyed, taking with him six brethren who were then present, having apparently come up to Jerusalem along with him, and to whom he may be pictured as having pointed—“these six brethren also accompanied me.”

(4) The account Cornelius gave of the angel’s appearance in his house with instructions to send men to Joppa for him, Simon, whose surname was Peter, who, the angel said, should tell him words whereby he and all his house should be saved (Act_11:13-14).

(5) The descent of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius and his household almost immediately after he had commenced to speak (the interval between his beginning to preach and the Spirit’s coming down seemed so short), and in exactly the same fashion as it had done upon Jewish believers at Pentecost—i.e., with the same manifestations in the form of tongues (Act_11:15).

(6) The impression the phenomenon had made upon himself. It caused him to remember the word of the Lord (see Act_1:5) about the difference between John’s baptism with water and the Lord’s baptism with the Holy Ghost (Act_11:16).

(7) The process of reasoning he then followed—which was that, if God had bestowed on them, the Gentiles, the same gift of the Holy Ghost as He had conferred on Jewish believers, it was manifest God had received them, the Gentiles, into His Church; and that being the case who was he, Peter, that he should withstand God and keep them out by withholding from them the rite of baptism, which was the sign of their being let in (Act_11:17)?

3. The success with which it was given.

(1) The apostles and brethren held their peace. They could say nothing against it. It was as clearly the doing of God as the healing of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple had been (Act_4:14).

(2) They glorified God, saying, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” What a pity they did not ever after remain in this mind!

Learn.—

1. That misunderstandings will arise among Christian brethren.

2. That all Christian believers are not equally enlightened, or equally free from prejudice, narrow-mindedness and bigotry.

3. That the best way to remove misunderstandings and overcome prejudices among Christians is to come together in friendly conference.

4. That the same story is seldom twice told in the same way and without variation in details.

5. That whom God admits into the Church none have a right to exclude.

Note A.—The historical credibility of Cornelius’s conversion has been objected to principally on the following grounds:

1. That it had no practical effect on the settlement of the Gentile question.

2. That Paul did not cite it as an argument in the Jerusalem council.

3. That in spite of the silence and glorification of God which followed Peter’s explanation (Act_11:18) the Jerusalem Christians were not long in reasserting their old demand for the circumcision of non-Jewish believers (Act_15:5).

4. That the council felt itself wholly undecided as to the position it ought to maintain on this question of the terms of communion for Gentile members.

5. That Peter’s subsequent behaviour at Antioch showed he had never really known of such a conversion as is here reported. (See Baur’s Life and Work of Paul, 1:81–92; Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 183–190; Holtzmann, Hand Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Erster Band, p. 366). But—

1. Cornelius’s conversion was distinctly referred to by Peter, if not by Paul, in his speech at the apostolic council (Act_15:7), so that it cannot be truthfully affirmed. Cornelius’s conversion was wholly without effect in determining the Gentile question.

2. If Paul did not cite that conversion when addressing the council, he may have deemed it unnecessary to do so after Peter’s reference to the same event. Along with this it should be noted that as Paul’s address has not been reported, one cannot be certain that he made no allusion to Peter’s action in receiving Cornelius.

3. If circumcision for the Gentiles was again mooted in Jerusalem, that was not surprising considering it was the Pharisees who mooted it (Act_15:5).

4. The allegation that the council did not know how to act upon the question is incorrect, since they answered the question to Paul’s satisfaction.

5. The wavering of Peter at Antioch (Gal_2:12) only showed that he, like many another good man before and since, was inconsistent—not that he had not baptised Cornelius. Lesser difficulties—such as the number of visions connected with the story, the uselessness of sending Cornelius to Peter to hear about the gospel, when he could have learnt all he wanted to know from Philip, and the obvious inaccuracy of the statement (Act_10:28), since how otherwise could a Gentile be transformed into a Jewish proselyte—scarcely require an answer. The notion that the Cornelius history is a free composition intended to legitimate Paul’s Gentile mission by showing that Peter had opened the door to the heathen before him contains this element of truth, that Peter’s action in baptising Cornelius without circumcision because the Holy Ghost had, on the same terms, granted the gift of tongues, proved that Paul’s procedure in the Gentile Churches was not unauthorised and self-invented, but had the highest possible sanction, that of the Holy Ghost and of Peter. The remainder of the Tübingen theory is an exploded delusion.

Note B.—The Theology of Peter, as set forth in the various addresses given by him in the Acts:—

1. In the Upper Room (Act_1:15-22);

2. On the Day of Pentecost (Act_2:14-36);

3. In Solomon’s Porch (Act_3:12-26);

4. Before the Sanhedrim (Act_4:8-12);

5. In the Christian Meeting (Act_5:3-4; Act_5:8-9);

6. Before the Sanhedrim (Act_5:29-32);

7. In Samaria (Act_8:20-23);

8. At Lydda (Act_9:34);

9. At Joppa (Act_9:40);

10. At Cæsarea (Act_10:24-43).

I. Peter’s doctrine of God.—

1. The personality of God is everywhere assumed (Act_1:24, Act_2:29, Act_3:13, etc.). His wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

2. The sovereignty of God, both in providence (Act_2:23) and in grace (Act_3:26), is fearlessly asserted.

3. The unity of the Godhead is everywhere clearly taught, as, for instance, when the term God is used absolutely (Act_3:18, Act_4:10, Act_5:4, Act_10:34, etc.).

4. The trinity of persons in the Godhead, if not distinctly expressed, is fairly implied in such passages as teach the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost.

II. Peter’s doctrine of Christ.—

1. His person.

(1) That Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical personage, a true man, a genuine partaker of flesh and blood humanity, and not a mere semblance thereof, as the later Docetæ taught, Peter presupposes throughout—taking for granted all the details of His earthly history as these have been recorded in the gospel records, if not mentioning His Incarnation implying it when affirming His divinity (see below), alluding to His baptism (Act_10:38), His philanthropic ministry (Act_10:38), His sinless character calling Him God’s holy and righteous One (Act_3:14), affirming His crucifixion (Act_2:23, Act_10:39), His resurrection (Act_2:23; Act_2:31; Act_3:15; Act_5:40-41), and His ascension (Act_2:33; Act_3:21; Act_5:31), and predicting His future coming as the Judge of quick and dead (Act_10:42).

(2) That Peter regarded Jesus of Nazareth as a pre-existent Divine being, who had been sent and who had come into the world, may be reasonably inferred from such statements as these—“He is Lord of all” (Act_10:36), “David saith concerning Him, I beheld the Lord always before my face” (Act_2:25), and “The Lord saith unto my Lord” (Act_2:34), since, even if they refer to the exalted Christ, it cannot be supposed that Christ could have been made a Divine being by the process of resurrection and exaltation if He had not been so before.

(3) That Peter considered this exalted Divine human personality as the Messiah of Israel (Act_2:36) and the Saviour of the world (Act_3:25), is expressly stated.

2. His work. That Peter regarded Christ as Jehovah’s servant (Act_3:13; Act_3:26, Act_4:27; Act_4:30) who had been commissioned to perform upon the earth a work through which men might receive remission of sins (Act_3:19; Act_10:43), is hardly less apparent than that Peter connected that work with His death upon the cross (Act_2:32; Act_2:38; Act_3:26; Act_4:10-12; Act_9:43).

III. Peter’s doctrine of the Spirit.—

1. The personality (Act_5:3), and

2. The divinity (Act_5:4), are unambiguously asserted.

IV. Peter’s doctrine of Providence.—Includes the following points:

1. The sovereignty of God in foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass (Act_4:28).

2. The freedom of man in accomplishing his own will while all the time he executes the purpose of God (Act_2:23; Act_4:27).

3. The present and immediate knowledge of all that man thinks and does upon the earth (Act_1:24; Act_4:29).

4. The possibility of interposing, either naturally or supernaturally, in the course of mundane history (Act_4:29).

V. Peter’s doctrine of sin.—On this momentous subject the Apostle taught:

1. That sin in its essence was disobedience to God (Act_4:19; Act_5:29).

2. That thoughts of the heart as well as overt actions or words were included in the category of sin (Act_5:3; Act_8:27).

3. That sin until it was forgiven held men’s souls in spiritual bondage (Act_8:23).

4. That the sins of men might work out the purposes of God (Act_2:23).

5. That sins of the most heinous character were pardonable through Christ’s blood (Act_2:38; Act_3:19; Act_8:22; Act_10:43).

VI. Peter’s doctrine of salvation.—Contained these tenets:

1. That all men needed salvation, Jew and Gentile alike (Act_2:39).

2. That this salvation was attainable only through Jesus Christ (Act_3:12).

3. That the only condition of salvation was faith in Christ’s name (Act_10:43).

VII. Peter’s doctrine of the last things.—This included—

1. A second advent of Jesus Christ to be preceded by times of refreshing, and ushering in the times of the restoration of all things (Act_3:21).

2. A future resurrection for all men (Act_4:2).

3. A solemn assize for quick and dead (Act_10:42).

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act_11:2. Ecclesiastical Controversy.

I. Frequently arises concerning points of small moment.—About non essentials rather than about essentials, about external forms and ceremonies rather than about internal thoughts and dispositions, about the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin, rather than about the weightier matters of the law, judgment, and mercy, and faith (Mat_23:23). Such was the case here. The contention which arose between the circumcision party and Peter was not about spiritual religion but only about bodily ritual, was not whether Cornelius had been converted, but whether he had been circumcised, was not whether Peter had received him into the Church without the exercise of faith, but whether Peter had dispensed with the corporeal mark of Mosaism. A small affair to make a noise about.

II. Is seldom settled without strife and angry feeling.—To the credit of the brethren and of Peter in this instance it was. Peter, by his frank and unvarnished recital of what he had done, and how he had been led to do it, cleared away the misconceptions and disarmed the suspicions of his brethren; they, on the other hand, by their amiable tempers and ready disposition to have their difficulties removed, contributed to a speedy settlement of what might have developed into a prolonged and bitter agitation, A pattern which might be profitably studied by disputants of all sorts.

III. Would be easily disposed of were both parties always anxious to find out and follow the mind of God.—It was thus the threatened rupture in Jerusalem was averted. Peter did not oppose his own authority to that of his brethren, or lecture them on their narrow-mindedness in seeking to impose their antiquated ceremonial on the Gentiles, or plume himself on his superior enlightenment in dispensing with the Mosaic rite, but simply assisted his brethren to see how God in His providence and by His grace had already decided the controversy. His brethren when they perceived this could no longer maintain their favourite views, but humbly and submissively accepted the verdict of heaven, feeling that when God interposed with a decision there was, and ought to be, an end of all controversy.

Act_11:4. Expository Preaching. Should be like Peter’s discourse to his brethren.

I. Regular and systematic.—Going over the contents of revelation in order, so as to present Divine truth in its inherent connection, logical succession, and due proportion.

II. Clear and emphatic.—Showing that the speaker has an adequate grasp of his theme, is master of his own thoughts, and can express both with perspicuity and power.

III. Comprehensive and detailed.—Neither fragmentary nor trivial. Not leaving great lacunæ, or condescending to over-minute particulars; but presenting a broad view of the truth in all its parts, and with such parts as are more important set forth in prominence.

IV. Experimental and emotional.—Not discoursing on the contents of revelation as if these were mere objective truths which had no bearing on either speaker or hearer; but talking of them as if conscious of their vast importance for the inner life of both.

V. Personal and practical.—Aimed at the conviction as well as enlightenment of them that hear, at converting their hearts as well as gaining over their judgments.

Act_11:9. Divine Warnings; or, “What God hath cleansed make not thou common.”

I. To men in general.—In particular to philosophers, scientists, statesmen, rulers—not to introduce distinctions of class, rank, wealth, power, etc., between man and man, seeing that God hath made all men of one blood, and therefore equal. The brotherhood of man stands to day in need of emphasis and exposition.

II. To the Church of Jesus Christ.—In particular to its office-bearers and spiritual leaders—not to make the household of faith narrower than Christ has made it, not to erect around it fences which Christ has not commanded, not to excommunicate those whom Christ has admitted, not to impose burdens on the consciences of men which Christ has not directed.

III. To the individual believer.—In particular to him who is conscious of being a child of God—not to defile with sin and guilt the heart and conscience which Christ by His blood and word has cleansed, not to let down to low and common levels the life which should be lived in the high and pure atmosphere of fellowship with God and Christ.

Act_11:14. Words of Salvation. Words setting forth—

I. The nature and necessity of salvation.—

1. Its nature. Deliverance from the curse, power, and pollution of sin.

2. Its necessity. All are under condemnation, on account of sin, enthralled by the power of sin, and tainted by the moral pollution of sin.

II. The source and the means of salvation.—

1. The source. Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God.

2. The means. Faith in His blood, which signifies reliance on His propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world.

III. The recipients and subjects of salvation.—

1. Believers—i.e., such as by faith have put their trust in Him.

2. Their houses—i.e., on their complying with the same condition.

Act_11:16. Remembering the Word of the Lord.

I. A much-neglected duty.—Not by the world alone, but also by the Lord’s people, who not only know and profess to believe that word, but who have themselves been saved by it, and have been commanded to keep it in remembrance (Joh_15:20; Col_3:16).

II. An exceedingly delightful exercise.—Not for the unbelieving and unspiritual, but for the religious and devout, to whom that word is more precious than thousands of silver and gold (Psa_119:72), and who can truly say, “Thy testimonies also are my delight” (Psa_119:24).

III. A highly profitable employment.—Were Christ’s words more frequently remembered, they would—

1. Save Christ’s people from falling into error and sin (Mat_26:75; Mar_14:72; Joh_2:22).

2. Comfort them in seasons of despondency and trouble (Luk_24:8).

3. Stimulate them to works of faith and labours of love (Act_20:35).

4. Secure for them answers to prayer (Joh_15:7).

5. Evidence the sincerity of their discipleship (Joh_8:31).

Act_11:17. Who was I? or, the Impossibility of withstanding God.—Peter felt that he could not oppose the introduction of Cornelius on four grounds.

I. He was only a feeble creature, whereas God was the Almighty Creator, and therefore had a right to do according to the counsel of His own will (Dan_4:35; Job_9:12; Isa_45:9; Rom_9:20; Eph_1:11).

II. He was only a commissioned servant, whereas God was the commissioning Sovereign, and was entitled to expect that His purpose should prevail over the wish of His ambassador.

III. He was only a recipient of grace, whereas God was the dispenser of grace, and possessed exclusively the right of saying on whom that grace should be bestowed.

IV. He was only a member of the Church, whereas God was the Church’s Head, and reserved to Himself alone the right of defining the terms on which admission to that Church might be secured.

Act_11:18. Repentance unto Life.

I. Its nature.—A turning of the soul from self and sin towards Christ and holiness—implying a genuine heart renunciation of the soul’s old life of selfishness, worldliness, irreligion, immorality, and idolatry, and an equally sincere embracing of the new life of faith, godliness, obedience, and love, which is enjoined by Jesus Christ in the gospel.

II. Its origin.—Repentance unto life is a grace—i.e., a heavenly gift, such a quality and disposition of soul as can be inwrought by no natural process, but must be created by the action of the Holy Spirit.

III. Its necessity.—Required by all men equally, by Jews as well as Gentiles, and required in the same way as a free gift of grace. None exempt from its obligations.

IV. Its end.—Salvation and eternal life. Hence called a saving grace. Wherever it truly exists the soul is passed from condemnation and become an heir of glory.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

C.—The Objections Of Prejudiced Judæo-Christians To The Fellowship With Gentiles, Which Had Been Commenced, Are Successfully Answered By Peter, Who Appeals To The Obvious Interposition Of The Lord In The Whole Transaction; Hence, Those Who Had Objected, Are Not Only Satisfied, But Also Offer Thanks To God For The Conversion Of The Gentiles.

Act_11:1-18

1And [But] the apostles and [the] brethren that were in [throughout] Judea heard that the Gentiles had also [also had] received the word of God. 2And when [But when]1 Peter was come [went] up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended [disputed] with him, 3Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised [men having the foreskin], and didst eat with them. 4But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning [But Peter began], and expounded it by [set forth in] order unto them, saying, 5I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been [as] a great sheet [large linen cloth], let down from heaven by four corners [at four ends]; and it came even to me: 6Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes [And when I gazed into it], I considered [observed], and saw [the] fourfooted beasts of the earth, and [the] wild beasts, and [the] creeping things, and fowls [the birds] of the air [of heaven]. 7And [But] I heard2 a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. 8But I said, Not so, [By no means, O] Lord; for nothing common or unclean hath at any time [for that which is common or unclean hath never yet]3 entered into my mouth. 9 But the [a] voice answered me [om. me]4 again [a second time] from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common. 10And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. 11And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto [three men stood before] the house where I was, sent from Cesarea unto me. 12And [But] the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting [om. nothing doubting]5 . Moreover these six brethren accompanied me [But there went with me these six brethren], and we entered into the man’s house: 13And he shewed [announced to] us how he had seen an [the, τὸυ] angel [standing] in his house, which stood and [who] said unto him, Send men [om. men]6 to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14Who shall tell [will say unto] thee words, whereby [through which] thou and all thy house shall [will] be saved. 15And as I began [But when I had begun] to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16Then remembered I the word of the7 Lord, how that he said, John indeed [om. indeed] baptized with water; but ye shall [will] be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17Forasmuch then as [If, then, εὶ οῦ̓ν] God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who [when we] believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could [how, then, was I able to]8 withstand God? 18When they heard these things, they held their peace [were quieted], and glorified9 God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance [change of mind] unto life.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Act_11:1-2. And the apostles … heard.—The conversion and baptism of Cornelius created a sensation in the church of Christ. Even before Peter returned to Jerusalem (Act_11:2), the apostles and the Christians in Judea, (κατὰ τὴν ʼΙονδαίαν, throughout Judea, residing in different parts of the province), obtained information that the Gentiles also had accepted the word of God. The manner in which the fact itself is stated, shows, in the first place, that it had made a favorable impression on the apostles and the great majority of Christians in Judea, and had gratified them; for it unquestionably promoted the honor of God when Gentiles also, and, therefore, not Israelites exclusively, received the Gospel. In the second place, the expression τὰ ἔθνη implies that the event was regarded as involving an important principle, and as being decisive in its nature; for these believers considered the act of individual Gentiles as bearing a representative character, since it showed that Paganism, viewed as a whole, was capable of receiving the word of God.

Act_11:3. Thou wentest … didst eat with them.—All the believers, however, did not receive such impressions, or else doubts may have gradually arisen in the minds of many, which altered their original favorable view of the case. This circumstance manifested itself when Peter returned to Jerusalem; those who were ἐκ περιτομῆς, Act_11:2, censured him.—Who are these persons? The expression resembles the one which occurs in Act_10:45 : οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς πιστοί, except that the latter is less likely to attract attention, since Peter and his Judæo-Christian attendants from Joppa are there surrounded by heathens, i.e., by uncircumcised men. But here in Jerusalem, on the contrary, there was certainly at that time, not one man among all the Christians, who was not an Israelite, and, consequently, circumcised. If, therefore, in the midst of the Judæo-Christian congregation, οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς are specially brought forward, this term cannot be intended to state the objective, religious and national fact that they were circumcised Jews, but can refer only to subjective [personal] views and sentiments. Those only of the Judæo-Christians are, accordingly, described by it, who assigned a peculiar value to circumcision, and, without doubt, to the observance of the Mosaic law in general. With this explanation the statement in the present verse agrees. These persons διεκρίνοντο πρὸς αὐτόν, that is, they disputed, contended with Peter (διακρίνομαι, secernor, pugna decerno, dimico); they declared it to be a ground of reproach to him, that he had entered the house of uncircumcised men, and eaten at the same table with them. Here ἀκροβυστία and περιτομή are, accordingly, antithetical terms. These strict men of the circumcision did not reproach Peter for having preached the Gospel to heathens and baptized them; such a course, indeed, they could not easily pronounce to be wrong, especially in view of the command of Jesus to preach the Gospel to all nations. But they could not reconcile it with their lofty conceptions of a strictly legal course of action, and of the dignity of an Israelite, that Peter should have commenced such a familiar intercourse, and such a close fellowship with pagans, entered a pagan house, and sat as a guest at the table of an uncircumcised man. If these opponents of Peter reflected further, they must have at last arrived at the conclusion that those pagans who hear the word of Christ and believe it, should necessarily be first circumcised and fully incorporated with the people of Israel, before a Christian, that is, a Judæo-Christian, could hold intercourse with them without restraint, and maintain a fraternal fellowship with them. And this was undoubtedly the Judaizing principle, in the proper sense of the term.

Act_11:4-11. But Peter … from the beginning [But Peter began.].—The word ἀρξάμενος is not intended merely to describe the general fact that Peter began to speak, but also implies that his narrative took a wide range, and embraced the earliest circumstances connected with the event. The term καθεξῆς denotes that the apostle furnished a detailed and regular statement of all the facts, in the order in which they successively occurred. It is precisely the intimate manner in which the several incidents in the narrative are here interwoven with each other, that produces conviction, and silences every doubt. The true purport and meaning of the revelation which God granted to Peter in the vision (Act_11:5-10), are unfolded by the arrival of the messengers from Cesarea (Act_11:11), which coincided in time with the vision, as well as by the simultaneous command of the Spirit (Act_11:12) that he should accompany them. And when the apostle enters the house of Cornelius, he learns that the latter had also received a divine command, and had been directed to send to Joppa, in order to hear the saving word from Peter’s own mouth. As soon, moreover, as the Gospel is proclaimed to Cornelius and his friends, (Act_11:15), the outpouring of the Holy Ghost occurs, and thus the several circumstances are all intimately connected with one another—each particular illustrates, explains, and confirms the rest, and the whole not only produces an harmonious impression on the mind, but also testifies incontrovertibly; “It is the will of God!” And, as the event exercised such great influence on the enlargement and regular development of the church of Christ, Luke here repeats, in the words of the apostle, the principal features of the narrative which he had himself given in the previous chapter.

Act_11:12-14. And the Spirit bade me go, etc.—The word οῦ̓τοι which is appended to οἱ ἓξ ἀδελφοί, Act_11:12, shows that the Christians of Joppa, who had accompanied Peter to Cesarea, subsequently went with him to Jerusalem; this could have the more easily occurred, if, as it is probable, Peter at once proceeded to that city, without returning to Joppa. It is, besides, quite possible that Peter anticipated that some individuals in Jerusalem would remonstrate against the course of action which he had pursued, and hence desired the presence of these brethren as witnesses of the divine guidance in the whole transaction.

Act_11:15. And as I began.—The language: ἐν τῷ ἄρξασδαί με λαλεῖν, implies that Peter had not yet concluded, but intended to continue his discourse, when he was interrupted by the unexpected occurrence to which he here refers. [ʼΑξα. is not pleonastic, as some have supposed, but is equivalent to: ‘I had scarcely spoken a few words, when, etc.’ Winer: Gr. N. T. § 65. 7. d.—Tr.]. When he mentions here the communication of the Spirit, he purposely lays a stress specially on its identity with the original communication of the Spirit to the Christians: ὥσπερ καὶ ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς ἐν ἀρχῇ, namely, in the beginning of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost [“on the day of Pentecost.” (Meyer).—Tr.].—When he afterwards says, Act_11:17 : τὴν ἵσην δωρεὰν—ὡς καὶ ἡμῖν πιστεύσασιν, etc., the participle πιστ. refers to ἡμῖν, which stands nearest to it, and neither to the more remote αὐτοῖς (Kuinoel), nor to both pronouns at the same time. For, as Bengel has ingeniously observed, this clause is intended to set forth that faith in Jesus was the condition on which alone the Christians had, at the beginning, received the gift of the Holy Ghost. The sense is: ‘Not because we were Israelites, nor because we had obtained, circumcision, but because we believed in Jesus as the Lord and Messiah, God has granted to us the gift of the Spirit, and indeed as a δωρεά, as a free gift of grace, to which we had no rightful claim, and which God did not owe to us.’

Act_11:16. Then remembered I … he said.—When Peter refers to the words of Jesus, which are recorded both in Luk_3:16 [Luk_24:49], and in Act_1:5, the sense is not merely, that Peter had lived to witness the extension to pagans also of the gift which had been promised more immediately to the apostles (Meyer); the apostle rather speaks emphatically of the relation existing between baptism with water and baptism with the Spirit in the following sense: ‘When the Lord promised us His baptism, it was the baptism with the Spirit;’ now if He has granted to pagans the same baptism with the Holy Ghost, which we ourselves had previously received, baptism with water could not, in that case, be denied to them, for such a denial would have, very erroneously, represented the latter as being more important and more holy than the baptism with the Spirit.

Act_11:17-18. a. As God gave them, etc. [the like gift … us, who believed; see above, on Act_11:15.—Tr.].—The question in the apodosis (Act_11:17): ἐγὼ δὲ τίς ἤμην δυνατός κωλῦσαι τὸυ θεόν, contains an inference corresponding to the foregoing [εἰ οῦ̓ν etc. is the protasis.—Tr.]. The particle δέ [see note 8 above, appended to the text.—Tr.] in the conditional clause, gives prominence to a certain antithesis, which is a double one in the present case, in which two interrogative clauses are combined. [Winer: Gr. N. T. § 66. 5. (3).—Tr.]. Peter asks: ‘Who, on the other hand, was I?’ and, ‘Was I, then, able to hinder God?’ The former question contrasts God with man, the latter, God’s almighty will and action with man’s feeble powers. In each respect it was impossible to hinder God, that is, when he decreed to save these pagans, and to incorporate them with the kingdom of Christ, as well as those who were Jews by birth. [“κωλ. τ. θ. i.e., to hinder God, by hindering the baptism (Act_10:47), which his will contemplated, when he communicated the Spirit.” (de Wette).—Tr.]

b. It hence appears that Peter did not restrict himself to the special objection which was made to his course in accepting the hospitality of pagans, and sitting at the table with them; he also took, as the basis of his vindication of himself, the gracious purpose of God respecting the Gentiles, in so far as that purpose was unmistakably revealed in the acts of God. If he could exhibit the subject distinctly and convincingly, from this point of view, his defence of himself for entering into social relations with pagans, would be perfectly successful. And such was really the case, according to Act_11:18. For, those who had entertained scruples, were not only satisfied (ἡσύχασαν), after hearing this address, and tacitly withdrew all that they had said in reproach of Peter, but also enthusiastically proclaimed the praises of God (ἐδόξαζον etc.), who had granted so great a gift as a change of mind to heathens also, with a view to life or to salvation. The change of tense in ἡσύχασαν and ἐδόξαζον [see note 9 above, appended to the text.—Tr.], informs us that Peter’s opponents were at once satisfied, but that the thanks and praises which they gave to God, were enduring.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The circumstance is not concealed from us, that a difference of opinion existed among the members of the primitive church respecting the procedure of Peter in the case of Cornelius, insomuch that even reproaches were addressed to the apostle on account of his conduct. A feeling of dissatisfaction manifested itself, like that which is mentioned in Act_6:1; in the latter case, it was entertained by one part of the church against the other, but it is here an apostle with whom a part of the church is dissatisfied. Sacred History does not purpose to exhibit the believers in an ideal light, which would require that such facts should be veiled, but presents the whole case in accordance with the truth. Even the apostolic church was not distinguished by such unity of sentiment, that no difference of opinion could arise and cloud it. And even if this dissatisfaction with Peter’s course, and these complaints originally proceeded from a “zeal of God” [Rom_10:2], it is, at the same time, perfectly clear that this zeal was “not according to knowledge,” and that moral defects also exercised an influence. Nevertheless, all is reported with the utmost candor, not merely for the sake of historical truth, but also in order that we might derive a warning from it, and understand that he that thinketh he standeth, should take heed lest he fall! (1Co_10:12).

2. The deportment of the apostle Peter, when he heard these reproaches, was truly evangelical, and in accordance with the mind of Jesus, and was not hierarchical in its character. Far from retiring behind the protection of his apostolical authority and power, or leaning for support on any alleged primacy—far from claiming to be infallible in deciding a question of principle, or declining to furnish explanations and to justify himself, he allowed his opponents to express themselves unreservedly and fully. His defence, which was made with the utmost calmness and gentleness, was so constructed that the facts themselves spoke aloud, insomuch that even his opponents voluntarily confessed that they were vanquished. It was only in this way that the discussion could really result in majorem Dei gloriam (ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεόν, Act_11:18); and it produced this result far more successfully than if the principle had been tenaciously held, that the apostle was a priori necessarily right, or, that, in view of the contracted judgment of the laity, he was by no means bound to explain his conduct.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Act_11:1. The apostles and brethren … heard.—The sweet savour of Christ [2Co_2:15] is sometimes widely diffused by a single family. (Quesn.).—It will ever be an honor to this upright man (Peter), that he dared to be the first who, in company with others, guided poor heathens to Christ by means of the Gospel. If, then, it should even be the case that nothing at all is said about any one of us, except that we had not labored in vain to save sinners through the Gospel—that here a sinner had been awakened, or there a thirsting soul sought the grace of God—that here a soul had found peace, or there another obeyed the Gospel—and, that we had faithfully guided all,—this would be an abiding praise before God. (Ap. Past.).—Cesarea and Antioch, the joy of Jerusalem. This is the theme of the present chapter. The Lord subdued the carnal thoughts of the believers who were of the circumcision, so that they were quieted; they now not only praised God for all that had occurred in Cesarea, but also stretched forth fraternal hands to Antioch, so that all might be accomplished in that city, which the tokens in Cesarea had indicated. Before Luke exhibits to us the progress of the Gospel from Antioch even to the end of the earth, he directs our attention to the unity of the Spirit, which marked the relations between Antioch and Jerusalem; but Cesarea was the bond of peace which the Lord had, in a wonderful manner, established between these two cities. (Besser).

Act_11:2-3. But when Peter was come up … they … contended with him, etc.—How often wisdom still has to justify herself on account both of her children, and of her manner of gathering them, in answer to many a censure and many an objection which men pronounce! Who can perform any work so skilfully, as to be liable to no objection? But it is often well that such opposition counterbalances the joy with which success might inspire us, as we thus the more surely remain in that humble and calm frame of mind, which Peter here exhibits. (Rieger).—The church in Jerusalem did not recognize Peter as a pope, since she here calls him to account. (Starke).—The discussion of religious subjects, it is true, can seldom take place, without being, to a certain extent, a source of offence; still, it is often attended with the advantage that the truth is thus more fully brought to light, (id.).—We learn from this contention, 1. That even among God’s saints no one has been free from blemishes and folly; and although we cannot compare the large rents in the walls of our modern Zion with the inconsiderable crevices that may be discovered in the primitive church, nevertheless, the church has at all times been, and always will continue to be, a lazar-house, in which the sick and the infirm are restored by Jesus, the faithful Physician. Let no one, then, despond, who is required to fulfil the duties of his office among the dead and the living, the healthy and the sick. 2. But, on the other hand, we ought not to ascribe the faults of the saints to a malicious spirit. There are some, who, when they speak of the devout, strain at gnats, while, at other times, they can even swallow camels. There are others who look at the failings of the apostles through a magnifying glass, and charge them with having misunderstood the mind of their Master, with having caused his plan to fail, etc., because they cannot establish their own system of faith, except on the ruins of the apostolic doctrine. There are even individuals who attempt to palliate their own transgressions, by appealing to the faults and sins of believers in the primitive church. It is necessary to explain to all such persons the distinction between faults and weaknesses, on the one hand, and unfaithfulness and unholiness of feeling, on the other—to show them that the faults of believers are not presented as models, but recorded as warnings—and to exhort them to repent, and do the first works [Rev_2:5]. Pastors, especially, are bound to guard against indulging a contentious spirit, and to remember the word of Paul: “If any man seem to be contentious, [let him know that (Germ. version)] we have no such custom.” [1Co_11:16]. 3. When we have truly known and experienced the universal love of God, we can form a more correct judgment respecting many occurrences which are connected with the kingdom of God, although they may take place beyond the pale of our own creed, and we will be preserved from yielding to an undue zeal against other religions. It will give us pleasure when, here or there, another soul is won, even if we might object in part to the manner in which that soul was approached. 4. They were of the circumcision, or believers among the Jews, who took offence at the baptism of the Gentiles [see Exeg. note on Act_11:3.—Tr.]. Their attachment to the traditions of the fathers, and their erroneous views of certain passages of the Scriptures, led them to regard the observance of the Mosaic law as necessary. A remnant of the Jewish leaven still fermented in them, and, through them, in the primitive church. We here find a striking illustration of the force of old and deep-rooted prejudices, even in the case of converted men. The tendency to rely on works, as if they were meritorious, is not entirely extirpated, even when its gross forms cease to appear after conversion. (Ap. Past.).—The infirmities of believers: they are to be regarded, I. Not as facts which bear witness against the faith, but as evidences of human imperfection, over which faith has not yet fully prevailed; II. Not as palliations of our own sins, but as facts which warn him who stands, to take heed lest he fall.—The divisions in the primitive Church—exhibited to Christendom, for the purpose of, I. Humbling men, by exposing the power of the enemy, who never fails to sow tares among the wheat; II. Comforting men, by demonstrating that nothing new or strange occurs in the experience of the church, when rents and divisions take place in our day; III. Instructing men, by showing how such divisions may be healed, through the power of evangelical truth and love.

Act_11:4-17. [See above, Hom. etc. on Act_10:9-23.]. Observe here a beautiful illustration of humility, as furnished by a religious teacher. Peter gives an account of his conduct with modesty, in full accordance with his own exhortation (1Pe_3:15-16), in a very different manner from the bishops of Rome, who will not consent to be judged by any one. Psa_12:4. (Starke).—Here he was truly Peter; like a rock that cannot be moved, he retained all his firmness when the brethren assailed him, and neither permitted himself to doubt the truth of his convictions, nor lost his calmness and gentleness. How would we have sustained ourselves in such a trial—we, who are often so sensitive and impatient when sincere friends kindly admonish us, or, after we have ascertained the will of God, begin to waver, when we hear the opinions of men? (From Ap. Past.).—The testimony of the six brethren of Joppa, who had accompanied Peter, was now of great advantage to him. Hence, it is well, if we desire to obviate all doubts, to act with openness, and to secure the testimony of men of acknowledged veracity. (Rieger).—The defence of the apostle is, in its whole character, calm, natural and convincing. He relates all the circumstances of the case with precision, and specially dwells on those which justified his conduct, e. g., his own prejudice at the beginning, the heavenly vision, etc. This mode of demonstrating his innocence, by a plain statement of the facts themselves, corresponds precisely to the spirit of Christianity, which demands that truth and uprightness should constitute the basis of all our actions. (From Ap. Past.).—The apostle Peter’s vindication, in the presence of the Christians, of his conduct in baptizing heathens: I. That he vindicates himself; II. The manner in which he does it. (Schleiermacher).

Act_11:18. When they heard these things, they held their peace.—The strong should bear with the infirmities of the weak, but the latter should also be willing to receive the admonitions of the former. (Starke).—To err is human, but to adhere resolutely to an error of which we are convinced is devilish. How much injury has been inflicted on the church of God by that obstinacy which continues to defend erroneous views, because they have been once adopted! (Ap. Past.)—The objections of human short-sightedness against the wonderful ways of divine wisdom: they must end, I. In self-abasement and silence, II. In joyful praise of God.

ON THE WHOLE SECTION.—Peter’s defence of his conduct before the brethren, a model of a fraternal vindication: I. By its evangelical gentleness and humility; II. By its apostolical firmness and candor.

The best witnesses of a servant of God, when he is assailed and misjudged: I. The commission of God, of which he is conscious; II. The eyes of men, in whose presence he labored; III. The peace of mind with which he can justify himself; IV. The fruits of his labors, to which he may point.

Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life: let us here observe, I. The greatness of divine mercy; II. The blessings which follow man’s repentance.

The reception of the first heathen family into the Christian brotherhood: I. A glorious triumph of divine wisdom and mercy; II. A noble proof of Christian humility and charity; III. A. powerful impulse to that love which seeks the salvation of men.

Footnotes:

[1]Act_11:2. ὅτε δέ is better sustained by manuscripts [A. B. E. Cod. Sin., followed by Lach. Tisch. and Alt.], and ancient versions [Vulg. etc.] than καὶ ὅτε [of text. rec. with G. H.—Tr.]

[2]Act_11:7. [καὶ omitted before φωνῆς in text. rec. with G. H., is found in A. B. E. Cod. Sin., Vulg. etc. and adopted by Lach., Tisch., and Alf.; D. reads καὶ ἥκουσα.—Tr.]

[3]Act_11:8. πᾶν before κοινόν [of text. rec.] is very feebly supported [by G. H.]; it was doubtless introduced into some MSS. from Act_10:14. [Omitted in A. B. D. E, Cod. Sin. Vulg. etc. and by later editors.—Tr.]

[4]Act_11:9. μοι [of text. rec.] before φωνή is wanting in good authorities [A. B. Cod. Sin. vulg. etc., but is found in E. G. H.; πρὸς μέ in D.]; it was probably interpolated in order to correspond to Act_11:7 [or to Act_10:15, (Alf.); omitted by Lach. Tisch. and Alf.—Tr.]

[5]Act_11:12. The words μηδὲν διακρινόμενον [of text. rec. with E. G. H. Vulg. etc.], are cancelled by Tischendorf as spurious, because they are wanting even in that MS. which has, in this section, inserted the largest number of glosses in the text, viz. Cantabrig. (D); other manuscripts read διακρίνοντα or σιακρίναντα [the latter is the reading of A. B., and is adopted by Lach., and favored by de Wette], or διακρινόμενος [minuscules]. Cod. Sin. and one uncial MS. of the second rank, i. e. Cod. Basileensis (E) read διακρίνοντα [but a later hand altered the reading of Cod. Sin. to—ναντα.—Tr.]. The great diversity in the readings makes it probable that both words were a later addition derived from Act_10:20. [The words are omitted in D. Syr. etc. and by Alf.—Tr.]

[6]Act_11:13. ἅνδρος [of text. rec. with E. G. H.] after Ἰόππην, is wanting in important manuscripts [A. B. D. Cod. Sin.], and in most of the ancient versions [Syr. Vulg.]; it was interpolated here from Act_10:5. [Omitted by recent editors.—For τε after ἀπήγ. of text. rec. with E. G. H., and retained by Alf., δὲ is substituted from A. B. D. (also Cod. Sin.) by Lach. Tisch. and Bornem. with whom Meyer concurs.—Tr.]

[7]Act_11:16. [Some editors (Griesb.; Knapp, Lach.) who are now sustained by Cod. Sin., insert τοῦ before κυρίου, from A. D. E.—Tisch. and Alf., with text. rec., in accordance with G. H., fathers, etc. omit the word; comp. 1Pe_1:25, and see Winer: Gram. N. T. § 19 1, under κύριος.—Tr.]

[8]Act_11:17. δέ [of text. rec.] after ἐγώ is indeed wanting in A. B. D [and Cod. Sin.], and some minuscules, as well as in several versions [Syr. Vulg. and some fathers]; hence Lachmann has cancelled it. But it is attested by E. G. H., as well as some versions, and would scarcely have been inserted, if it had been originally omitted, as it seemed to be superfluous, [“δε was simply dropped, because it was not understood; here it occurs, as it often does in the apodosis after ἐπεί (in the classics), in order to give prominence to the antithesis (εἰ οὖγ ὁ θεος–ἐγὼ δὲ). Herm. Viger. p. 783, annot. 401. Lipsiæ. 1834.” (de Wette).—Retained by Alf. and Meyer.—Tr.]

[9]Act_11:18. ἐδόξαζον [text. rec. with A. E., and retained by Tischend. and Alf.] is far better supported than εδόξασαν, which Lachmann has preferred [and which is found in B. and Cod. Sin.], but which was adopted only for the sake of uniformity [to correspond to the aor. ἡσύχασαν; de Wette, who refers to Luk_8:23 prefers the imperfect tense, as that of continued action; see above, EXEG. on Act_8:15-17 ult.—́Αραγε, of text. rec. and E. G. H. is preferred by Alf. to ἄρα of A. B. D. and Cod. Sin.; the latter form is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.—Tr.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Acts

PETER’S APOLOGIA

Act 11:1 - Act 11:18.

Peter’s action in regard to Cornelius precipitated a controversy which was bound to come if the Church was to be anything more than a Jewish sect. It brought to light the first tendency to form a party in the Church. ‘They. . . of the circumcision’ were probably ‘certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,’ and were especially zealous for all the separating prescriptions of the ceremonial law. They were scarcely a party as yet, but the little rift was destined to grow, and they became Paul’s bitterest opponents through all his life, dogging him with calumnies and counterworking his toil. It is a black day for a Church when differences of opinion lead to the formation of cliques. Zeal for truth is sadly apt to enlist spite, malice, and blindness to a manifest work of God, as its allies.

Poor Peter, no doubt, expected that the brethren would rejoice with him in the extension of the Gospel to ‘the Gentiles,’ but his reception in Jerusalem was very unlike his hopes. The critics did not venture to cavil at his preaching to Gentiles. Probably none of them had any objection to such being welcomed into the Church, for they can scarcely have wished to make the door into it narrower than that into the synagogue, but they insisted that there was no way in but through the synagogue. By all means, said they, let Gentiles come, but they must first become Jews, by submitting to circumcision and living as Jews do. Thus they did not attack Peter for preaching to the Roman centurion and his men, but for eating with them. That eating not only was a breach of the law, but it implied the reception of Cornelius and his company into the household of God, and so destroyed the whole fabric of Jewish exclusiveness. We condemn such narrowness, but do many of us not practise it in other forms? Wherever Christians demand adoption of external usages, over and above exercise of penitent faith, as a condition of brotherly recognition, they are walking in the steps of them ‘of the circumcision.’

Peter’s answer to the critics is the true answer to all similar hedging up of the Church, for he contents himself with showing that he was only following God’s action in every step of the way which he took, and that God, by the gift of the divine Spirit, had shown that He had taken these uncircumcised men into His fellowship, before Peter dared to ‘eat with them.’ He points to four facts which show God’s hand in the matter, and thinks that he has done enough to vindicate himself thereby. The first is his vision on the housetop. He tells that he was praying when it came, and what God shows to a praying spirit is not likely to mislead. He tells that he was ‘in a trance,’-a condition in which prophets had of old received their commands. That again was a guarantee for the divine origin of the vision in the eyes of every Jew, though nowadays it is taken by anti-supernaturalists as a demonstration of its morbidness and unreliableness. He tells of his reluctance to obey the command to ‘kill and eat.’ A flash of the old brusque spirit impelled his flat refusal, ‘Not so, Lord!’ and his daring to argue with his Lord still, as he had done with Him on earth. He tells of the interpreting and revolutionary word, evoked by his audacious objection, and then he tells how ‘this was done thrice,’ so that there could be no mistake in his remembrance of it, and then that the whole was drawn up into heaven,-a sign that the purpose of the vision was accomplished when that word was spoken. What, then, was the meaning of it?

Clearly it swept away at once the legal distinction of clean and unclean meats, and of it, too, may be spoken what Mark, Peter’s mouthpiece, writes of earthly words of Christ’s: ‘This He said, making all meats clean.’ But with the sweeping away of that distinction much else goes, for it necessarily involves the abrogation of the whole separating ordinances of the law, and of the distinction between clean and unclean persons. Its wider application was not seen at the moment, but it flashed on him, no doubt, when face to face with Cornelius. God had cleansed him, in that his prayers had ‘gone up for a memorial before God,’ and so Peter saw that ‘in every nation,’ and not among Jews only, there might be men cleansed by God. What was true of Cornelius must be true of many others. So the whole distinction between Jew and Gentile was cut up by the roots. Little did Peter know the width of the principle revealed to him then, as all of us know but little of the full application of many truths which we believe. But he obeyed so much of the command as he understood, and more of it gradually dawned on his mind, as will always be the case if we obey what we know.

The second fact was the coincident arrival of the messengers and the distinct command to accompany them. Peter could distinguish quite assuredly his own thoughts from divine instructions, as his account of the dialogue in the trance shows. How he distinguished is not told; that he distinguished is. The coincidence in time clearly pointed to one divine hand working at both ends of the line,- Caesarea and Joppa. It interpreted the vision which had ‘much perplexed’ Peter as to what it ‘might mean.’ But he was not left to interpret it by his own pondering. The Spirit spoke authoritatively, and the whole force of his justification of himself depends on the fact that he knew that the impulse which made him set out to Caesarea was not his own. If the reading of the Revised Version is adopted in Act 11:12, ‘making no distinction,’ the command plainly referred to the vision, and showed Peter that he was to make no distinction of ‘clean and unclean’ in his intercourse with these Gentiles.

The third fact is the vision to Cornelius, of which he was told on arriving. The two visions fitted into each other, confirmed each other, interpreted each other. We may estimate the greatness of the step in the development of the Church which the admission of Cornelius into it made, and the obstacles on both sides, by the fact that both visions were needed to bring these two men together. Peter would never have dreamed of going with the messengers if he had not had his narrowness beaten out of him on the housetop, and Cornelius would never have dreamed of sending to Joppa if he had not seen the angel. The cleft between Jew and Gentile was so wide that God’s hand had to be applied on both sides to press the separated parts together. He had plainly done it, and that was Peter’s defence.

The fourth fact is the gift of the Spirit to these Gentiles. That is the crown of Peter’s vindication, and his question, ‘Who was I, that I could withstand God?’ might be profitably pondered and applied by those whose ecclesiastical theories oblige them to deny the ‘orders’ and the ‘validity of the sacraments’ and the very name of a Church, to bodies of Christians who do not conform to their polity. If God, by the gift of His Spirit manifest in its fruits, owns them, they have the true ‘notes of the Church,’ and ‘they of the circumcision’ who recoil from recognising them do themselves more harm thereby than they inflict on these. ‘As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God,’ even though some brother may be ‘angry’ that the Father welcomes them.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 11

1. Peter’s Defense in Jerusalem (Act 11:1-18).

2. The Beginning of the Church in Antioch (Act 11:19-21).

3. Barnabas sent to Antioch (Act 11:22-26).

4. The Prophecy of Agabus (Act 11:27-30).

Peter silenced the objections of his brethren in Jerusalem by a rehearsal of his experience. Act 11:19 connects with Act 8:4. Antioch comes now into prominence as the great Gentile center of Christianity. A great number believed and turned unto the Lord. Then Barnabas was sent to Antioch to inspect the great work. They wanted to know in Jerusalem if the reports were true, and if true the assembly had to be recognized as such. This shows that the Oneness of the church, though not yet fully made known by revelation, was nevertheless realized through the Holy Spirit. And that a blessed relationship existed between the assembly in Jerusalem and the one in Antioch, is seen by Peter’s visit in that city, when in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, he ate with these believing Gentiles and enjoyed fellowship with them (Gal 2:11-12).

The movement also attracted the attention of the outsiders. They called them “Christians.” The Jews, it is certain, did not give this name, but the Gentiles invented it. Antioch was famous for its readiness to jeer and call names; it was known by its witty epigrams. So they coined a new word, “Christianoi”--Christians. It is used exclusively by outsiders, as seen in the case of Agrippa, also see 1Pe 4:16. Jews and Gentiles alike were called by this name, “Christians,” so that it bears testimony to the oneness of Jew and Gentile in Christ.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11:1-18 Jews traditionally kept themselves separate and did not eat or associate socially with Gentiles (10:28; 22:21-22; see John 4:9, 27; 18:28; Gal 2:12-14). Therefore, when the Jewish believers in Jerusalem learned that Gentiles had received the word of God, they criticized Peter’s unconventional actions and wanted an explanation, which Peter provided.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act_11:1-18. The fellowship into which Peter entered with the Gentiles (chap. 10) offends the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, but their objection is allayed by the apostle through a simple representation of the facts as a whole, and is converted into the praise of God.

κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν is not = ἐν τῇ Ἰουδ. (Kuinoel, de Wette), but throughout Judaea, v. 15, and see Nägelsb. on the Iliad, p. 12, ed. 3.

Act_11:2. διεκρίνοντο] they strove against him. Jud_1:9; Dem. 163. 15; Polyb. 2:22. 11; Athen. 12 :p. 544 C.

οἱ ἐκ περιτομ.] the circumcised Christians, as in Act_10:45, opposed to the Gentiles (ἀκροβυστ. ἔχοντας) whose conversion is reported.

ὅτι is most simply taken as recitative, neither quare, Vulg. (comp. on Mar_9:11), nor because (Grotius supplying: hoc querimur).

πρὸς ἄνδρας κ.τ.λ.] Thus it was not the baptism of these men that they called in question, but the fellowship entered into by Peter with them, especially the fellowship at table (comp. Gal_2:12). This was the stone of stumbling: for they had not come to Peter to be baptized, as a Gentile might present himself to become a proselyte; but Peter had gone in to them. Without ground (see, in opposition, Oertel, p. 211), Gfrörer and Zeller employ this passage against the historical character of the whole narrative of the baptism of Cornelius.

ἀκροβ. ἔχ.] An expression of indignation. Eph_2:11.

Act_11:4. ἀρξάμ. ἐξετιθ.] he began and expounded, so that ἀρξάμ. is a graphic trait, corresponding to the conception of the importance of the speech in contradistinction to the complaint;[265] comp. Act_2:4.

Act_11:6. εἰς ἣν ἀτενίσας κατενόουν κ. εἶδον] on which I, having fixed my glance, observed (Act_7:31) and saw, etc. This εἶδον τὰ τετράποδα κ.τ.λ. is the result of the κατενόουν.

κ. τὰ θηρία] and the beasts; specially to make mention of these from among the quadrupeds. In Act_10:12 the wild beasts were not specially mentioned; but there πάντα stood before ΤᾺ ΤΕΤΡΑΠ.

Act_11:11. ἮΜΕΝ] (see the critical remarks) is to be explained from the fact, that Peter already thinks of the ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ, Act_11:12, as included.

Act_11:12. ΟὟΤΟΙ] the men of Joppa, who had gone with Peter to Cornelius (Act_10:23), had thus accompanied him also to Jerusalem. They were now present in this important matter as his witnesses.

Act_11:13. ΤῸΝ ἌΓΓΕΛΟΝ] the angel already known from chap. 10,a mode of expression, no doubt, put into the mouth of Peter by Luke from his own standpoint.

Act_11:14. ἐν οἷς] by means of which.

Act_11:15. ἐν δὲ τῷ ἄρξασθαί με λαλεῖν] This proves that Peter, after Act_10:43, had intended to speak still considerably longer.

ΚΑῚ ἘΦ ̓ ἩΜᾶς and ΚΑῚ ἩΜῖΝ, Act_11:17 (it is otherwise with ὙΜΕῖς, Act_11:16), are to be taken as in Act_10:47.

ἘΝ ἈΡΧῇ] namely, at Pentecost. The period of the apostolic church was then at its beginning.

Act_11:16. Comp. Act_1:5.

ὡς ἔλεγεν] A frequent circumstantiality. Luk_22:61; Thuc. i. 1. 1, and Krüger in loc.; also Bornemann, ad Cyrop. i. 2, 5. Peter had recollected this saying of Christ, because he had seen realized in the Gentiles filled with the Spirit what Jesus, Act_1:5, had promised to the apostles for their own persons. Herein, as respects the divine bestowal of the Spirit, he had recognised a placing of the Gentiles concerned on the same level with the apostles. And from this baptisma flaminis he could not but infer it as willed by God, that the baptisma fluminis also was not to be refused.

Act_11:17. πιστεύσασιν] refers not to ΑὐΤΟῖς, as is assumed by Beza, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel against the order of the words, but to ἩΜῖΝ: as also to us as having become believers, etc., that is, as He has given it also to us, because we had become believers, so that thus the same gift of God indicated as its basis the same faith in them as in us.

ἐγὼ δὲ τίς ἤμην δυνατὸς κ.τ.λ.] Two interrogative sentences are here blended into one (Winer, p. 583 [E. T. 784]): Who was I on the other hand? was I able to hinder God, namely, by refusal of baptism? Concerning δέ, in the apodosis, following after a hypothetical protasis, see Nägelsb. on the Iliad, p. 66, ed. 3; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 92 f.

Act_11:18. ἡσύχασαν] they were silent, Luk_14:4, often in classical writers. Comp. Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 280. The following ἐδόξαζον (imperfect) thereupon denotes the continuous praising. Previously contention against Peter (Act_11:2-3), now silence, followed by praise of God.

ἄραγε] thus, as results from this event. By τὴν μετάνοιαν, however, is meant the Christian change of disposition; comp. Act_5:31.

εἰς ζωήν] unto (eternal Messianic) life; this is the aim of τὴν μετάνοιαν ἔδωκεν. Comp. ΣΩΘΉΣῌ, Act_11:14.

[265] The importance of the matter is the reason why Luke makes Peter again recite in detail the vision narrated. This in opposition to Schleiermacher, who finds in the double narrative a support for his view concerning the composition of the book.Observe how simply Peter makes his experience speak for itself, and then, ver. 16 ff., just as simply, calmly, and with persuasive brevity, subjoins the justification following from this experience.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 11:1 . For Western readings see critical notices. κατὰ τὴν Ἰ .: not simply in but throughout Judæa, “all about Judæa,” Hort, Ecclesia , p. 57, cf. Act 8:1 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 11:1-18. THE JUDÆO-CHRISTIANS BLAME PETER. HE MAKES HIS DEFENCE AT JERUSALEM

1. ἤκουσαν δέ, now they heard. The report of what had happened at Cæsarea reached Jerusalem before Peter’s return. Hence it seems that he accepted the hospitality of the new converts.

ὅτι καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ἐδέξαντο τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.

Where animate objects and especially persons are spoken of it is common in both classical and N.T. Greek for nouns in the neuter plural to be joined with a plural verb. Cf. Mat 27:52 πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν. For an instance of this usage about things inanimate see below Act 11:13, note. At the news of the acceptance of the word of God by the Gentiles, had there been no additional information about Peter’s eating with Cornelius, the disciples would have rejoiced, and would have welcomed this further spread of the word, as they did (Act 8:14) the conversion of the Samaritans, but to some, who were not only Christians, but strict observers of Jewish ritual, it was a cause of offence that Peter had consented to become the guest of a Gentile.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap.

11:1-18.] Peter justifies before the church in Jerusalem, his having consorted with men uncircumcised.

1. κατὰ τ. Ἰουδ.] in Judæa, or perhaps more strictly, throughout Judæa. (See reff.)

ὅτι κ. τ. ἔθν.] They seem to have heard the fact, without any circumstantial detail (but see on τὸν ἄγγελον below, ver. 13); and, from the charge in ver. 3,—from some reporter who gave the objectionable part of it, as is not uncommon in such cases, all prominence.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Peter being without cause reprehended of the unskillful and ignorant, doth not object that he ought not to be judged of any, but openly giveth an account of his doing.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

The preaching of the gospel to Cornelius was a thing which we poor sinners of the Gentiles have reason to reflect upon with a great deal of joy and thankfulness; for it was the bringing of light to us who sat in darkness. Now it being so great a surprize to the believing as well as the unbelieving Jews, it is worth while to enquire how it was received, and what comments were made upon it. And here we find,

I. Intelligence was presently brought of it to the church in Jerusalem, and thereabouts; for Cesarea was not so far from Jerusalem but that they might presently hear of it. Some for good-will, and some for ill-will, would spread the report of it; so that before he himself had returned to Jerusalem the apostles and the brethren there and in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God, that is, the gospel of Christ, which is not only a word of God, but the word of God; for it is the summary and centre of all divine revelation. They received Christ; for his name is called the Word of God, Rev 19:13. Not only that the Jews who were dispersed into the Gentile countries, and the Gentiles who were proselyted to the Jewish religion, but that the Gentiles also themselves, with whom it had hitherto been thought unlawful to hold common conversation, were taken into church-communion, that they had received the word of God. That is, 1. That the word of God was preached to them, which was a greater honour put upon them than they expected. Yet I wonder this should seem strange to those who were themselves commissioned to preach the gospel to every creature. But thus often are the prejudices of pride and bigotry held fast against the clearest discoveries of divine truth. 2. That it was entertained and submitted to by them, which was a better work wrought upon them than they expected. It is likely they had got a notion that if the gospel were preached to the Gentiles it would be to no purpose, because the proofs of the gospel were fetched so much out of the Old Testament, which the Gentiles did not receive: they looked upon them as not inclined to religion, nor likely to receive the impressions of it; and therefore were surprized to hear that they had received the word of the Lord. Note, We are too apt to despair of doing good to those who yet, when they are tried, prove very tractable.

II. That offence was taken at it by the believing Jews (Act 11:2, Act 11:3): When Peter had himself come up to Jerusalem, those that were of the circumcision, those Jewish converts that still retained a veneration for circumcision, contended with him. They charged it upon him as a crime that he went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them; and thereby they think he has stained, if not forfeited, the honour of his apostleship, and ought to come under the censure of the church: so far were they from looking upon him as infallible, or as the supreme head of the church that all were accountable to, and he to none. See here, 1. How much it is the bane and damage of the church, to monopolize it, and to exclude those from it, and from the benefit of the means of grace, that are not in every thing as we are. There are narrow souls that are for engrossing the riches of the church, as there are that would engross the riches of the world, and would be placed alone in the midst of the earth. These men were of Jonah's mind, who, in a jealousy for his people, was angry that the Ninevites received the word of God, and justified himself in it. 2. Christ's ministers must not think it strange if they be censured and quarrelled with, not only by their professed enemies, but by their professing friends; not only for their follies and infirmities, but for their good actions seasonably and well done; but, if we have proved our own work, we may have rejoicing in ourselves, as Peter had, whatever reflections we may have from our brethren. Those that are zealous and courageous in the service of Christ must expect to be censured by those who, under pretence of being cautious, are cold and indifferent. Those who are of catholic, generous, charitable principles, must expect to be censured by such as are conceited and strait-laced, who say, Stand by thyself, I am holier than thou.

III. Peter gave such a full and fair account of the matter of fact as was sufficient, without any further argument or apology, both to justify him, and to satisfy them (Act 11:4): He rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and laid it before them in order, and then could appeal to themselves whether he had done amiss; for it appeared all along God's own work, and not his.

1. He takes it for granted that if they had rightly understood how the matter was they would not have contended with him, and commended him. And it is a good reason why we should be moderate in our censures, and sparing of them, because if we rightly understood that which we are so forward to run down perhaps we should see cause to run in with it. When we see others do that which looks suspicious, instead of contending with them, we should enquire of them what ground they went upon; and, if we have not an opportunity to do that, should ourselves put the best construction upon it that it will bear, and judge nothing before the time.

2. He is very willing to stand right in their opinion, and takes pains to give them satisfaction. He does not insist upon his being the chief of the apostles, for he was far from the thought of that supremacy which his pretended successors claim. Nor does he think it enough to tell them that he is satisfied himself in the grounds he went upon, and they need not trouble themselves about it; but he is ready to give a reason of the hope that is in him concerning the Gentiles, and why he had receded from his former sentiments, which were the same with theirs. It is a debt we owe both to ourselves and to our brethren to set those actions of ours in a true light which at first looked ill and gave offence, that we may remove stumbling-blocks out of our brethren's way. Let us now see what Peter pleads in his own defence.

(1.) That he was instructed by a vision no longer to keep up the distinctions which were made by the ceremonial law; he relates the vision (Act 11:5, Act 11:6), as we had it before Act 10:9, etc. The sheet which was there said to be let down to the earth he here says came even to him, which circumstance intimates that it was particularly designed for instruction to him. We should thus see all God's discoveries of himself, which he has made to the children of men, coming even to us, applying them by faith to ourselves. Another circumstance here added is that when the sheet came to him he fastened his eyes upon it, and considered it, Act 11:6. If we would be led into the knowledge of divine things, we must fix our minds upon them, and consider them. He tells them what orders he had to eat of all sorts of meat without distinction, asking no questions for conscience' sake, Act 11:7. It was not till after the flood (as it should seem) that man was allowed to eat flesh at all, Gen 9:3. That allowance was afterwards limited by the ceremonial law; but now the restrictions were taken off, and the matter set at large again. It was not the design of Christ to abridge us in the use of our creature-comforts by any other law than that of sobriety and temperance, and preferring the meat that endures to eternal life before that which perishes. He pleads that he was as averse to the thoughts of conversing with Gentiles, or eating of their dainties, as they could be, and therefore refused the liberty given him: Not so, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth, Act 11:8. But he was told from heaven that the case was now altered, that God had cleansed those persons and things which were before polluted; and therefore that he must no longer call them common, nor look upon them as unfit to be meddled with by the peculiar people (Act 11:9); so that he was not to be blamed for changing his thoughts, when God had changed the thing. In things of this nature we must act according to our present light; yet must not be so wedded to our opinion concerning them as to be prejudiced against further discoveries, when the matter may either be otherwise or appear otherwise; and God may reveal even this unto us, Phi 3:15. And, that they might be sure he was not deceived in it, he tells them it was done three times (Act 11:10), the same command given, to kill and eat, and the same reason, because that which God hath cleansed is not to be called common, repeated a second and third time. And, further to confirm him that it was a divine vision, the things he saw did not vanish away into the air, but were drawn up again into heaven, whence they were let down.

(2.) That he was particularly directed by the Spirit to go along with the messengers that Cornelius sent. And, that it might appear that the vision was designed to satisfy him in this matter, he observes to them the time when the messengers came - immediately after he had that vision; yet, lest this should not be sufficient to clear his way, the Spirit bade him go with the men that were then sent from Cesarea to him, nothing doubting (Act 11:11, Act 11:12); though they were Gentiles he went to, and went with, yet he must make no scruple of going along with them.

(3.) That he took some of his brethren along with him, who were of the circumcision, that they might be satisfied as well as he; and these he had brought up from Joppa, to witness for him with what caution he proceeded, forseeing the offence that would be taken at it. He did not act separately, but with advice; not rashly, but upon due deliberation.

(4.) That Cornelius had a vision too, by which he was directed to send for Peter (Act 11:13): He showed us how he had seen a angel in his house, that bade him send to Joppa for one Simon, whose surname is Peter. See how good it is for those that have communion with God, and keep up a correspondence with heaven, to compare notes, and communicate their experiences to each other; for hereby they may strengthen one another's faith: Peter is the more confirmed in the truth of his vision by Cornelius's, and Cornelius by Peter's. Here is something added in what the angel said to Cornelius; before it was, Send for Peter, and he shall speak to thee, he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do (Act 10:6, Act 10:32); but here it is, "He shall tell thee words whereby thou and thy house shall be saved (Act 11:14), and therefore it is of vast concern to thee, and will be of unspeakable advantage, to send for him." Note, [1.] The words of the gospel are words whereby we may be saved, eternally saved; not merely by hearing them and reading them, but by believing and obeying them. They set the salvation before us, and show us what it is; they open the way of salvation to us, and, if we follow the method prescribed us by them, we shall certainly be saved from wrath and the curse, and be for ever happy. [2.] Those that embrace the gospel of Christ will have salvation brought by it to their families: "Thou and all thy house shall be saved; thou and thy children shall be taken into covenant, and have the means of salvation; thy house shall be as welcome to the benefit of the salvation, upon their believing, as thou thyself, even the meanest servant thou hast. This day is salvation come to this house," Luk 19:9. Hitherto salvation was of the Jews (Joh 4:22), but now salvation is brought to the Gentiles as much as ever it was with the Jews; the promises, privileges, and means of it are conveyed to all nations as amply and fully, to all intents and purposes, as ever it had been appropriated to the Jewish nation.

(5.) That which put the matter past all dispute was the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Gentile hearers; this completed the evidence that it was the will of God that he should take the Gentiles into communion. [1.] The fact was plain and undeniable (Act 11:15): "As I began to speak" (and perhaps he felt some secret reluctance in his own breast, doubting whether he was in the right to preach to the uncircumcised), "presently the Holy Ghost fell on them in as visible signs as on us at the beginning, in which there could be no fallacy." Thus God attested what was done, and declared his approbation of it; that preaching is certainly right with which the Holy Ghost is given. The apostle supposes this, when he thus argues with the Galatians: Received you the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Gal 3:2. [2.] Peter was hereby put in mind of a saying of his Master's, when he was leaving them (Act 1:5): John baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, Act 11:16. This plainly intimated, First, that the Holy Ghost was the gift of Christ, and the product and performance of his promise, that great promise which he left with them when he went to heaven. It was therefore without doubt from him that this gift came; and the filling of them with the Holy Ghost was his act and deed. As it was promised by his mouth, so it was performed by his hand, and was a token of his favour. Secondly, That the gift of the Holy Ghost was a kind of baptism. Those that received it were baptized with it in a more excellent manner than any of those that even the Baptist himself baptized with water. [3.] Comparing that promise, so worded, with this gift just now conferred, when the question was started, whether these persons should be baptized or no, he concluded that the question was determined by Christ himself (Act 11:17): "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did to us - gave it to us as believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, and to them upon their believing in him - What was I, that I could withstand God? Could I refuse to baptize them with water, whom God had baptized with the Holy Ghost? Could I deny the sign to those on whom he had conferred the thing signified? But, as for me, who was I? What! able to forbid God? Did it become me to control the divine will, or to oppose the counsels of Heaven?" Note, Those who hinder the conversion of souls withstand God; and those take too much upon them who contrive how to exclude from their communion those whom God has taken into communion with himself.

IV. This account which Peter gave of the matter satisfied them, and all was well. Thus, when the two tribes and a half gave an account to Phinehas and the princes of Israel of the true intent and meaning of their building themselves an altar on the banks of Jordan, the controversy was dropped, and it pleased them that it was so, Jos 22:30. Some people, when they have fastened a censure upon a person, will stick to it, though afterwards it appear ever so plainly to be unjust and groundless. It was not so here; for these brethren, though they were of the circumcision, and their bias went the other way, yet, when they heard this, 1. They let fall their censures: they held their peace, and said no more against what Peter had done; they laid their hand upon their mouth, because now they perceived that God did it. Now those who prided themselves in their dignities as Jews began to see that God was staining their pride, by letting in the Gentiles to share, and to share equally, with them. And now that prophecy was fulfilled, Thou shalt no more be haughty because of my holy mountain, Zep 3:11. 2. They turned them into praises. They not only held their peace from quarrelling with Peter, but opened their mouths to glorify God for what he had done by and with Peter's ministry; they were thankful that their mistake was rectified, and that God had shown more mercy to the poor Gentiles than they were inclined to show them, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life! He hath granted them not only the means of repentance, in opening a door of entrance for his ministers among them, but the grace of repentance, in having given them his Holy Spirit, who, wherever he comes to be a Comforter, first convinces, and gives a sight of sin and sorrow for it, and then a sight of Christ and joy in him. Note, (1.) Repentance, if it be true, is unto life. It is to spiritual life; all that truly repent of their sins evidence it by living a new life, a holy, heavenly, and divine life. Those that by repentance die unto sin thenceforward live unto God; and then, and not till then, we begin to live indeed, and it shall be to eternal life. All true penitents shall live, that is, they shall be restored to the favour of God, which is life, which is better than life; they shall be comforted with the assurance of the pardon of their sins, and shall have the earnest of eternal life, and at length the fruition of it. (2.) Repentance is God's gift; it is not only his free grace that accepts it, but his mighty grace that works it in us, that takes away the heart of stone, and gives us a heart of flesh. The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit; it is he that provides himself this lamb. (3.) Wherever God designs to give life he gives repentance; for this is a necessary preparative for the comforts of a sealed pardon and a settled peace in this world, and for the seeing and enjoying of God in the other world. (4.) It is a great comfort to us that God has exalted his Son Jesus, not only to give repentance to Israel, and the remission of sins (Act 5:31), but to the Gentiles also.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

CHAPTER XI.

Peter returns to Jerusalem, and is accused of having associated

with the Gentiles, 1-3.

He defends himself by relating at large the whole business

concerning Cornelius, 4-17.

His defense is accepted, and the whole Church glorifies God for

having granted unto the Gentiles repentance unto life, 18.

An account of the proceedings of those who were scattered abroad

by the persecution that was raised about Stephen; and how they

had spread the Gospel among the circumcision, in Phoenice,

Cyprus, and Antioch, 19-21.

The Church at Jerusalem, hearing of this, sends Barnabas to

confirm them in the faith, 22, 23.

His character, 24.

He goes to Tarsus to seek Saul, whom he brings to Antioch, where

the disciples are first called CHRISTIANS, 25, 26.

Certain prophets foretell the dearth which afterwards took place

in the reign of the Emperor Claudias, 27, 28.

The disciples send relief to their poor brethren to Judea, by

the hands of Barnabas and Saul, 29. 30.

NOTES ON CHAP. XI.

Verse 1. And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea] According to Calmet, Judea is here put in opposition to Caesarea, which, though situated in Palestine, passed for a Greek city, being principally inhabited by Pagans, Greeks, or Syrians.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1. And the apostles. Whereas Luke declareth that the fame of one house which was converted was spread abroad everywhere amongst the brethren, that did arise by reason of admiration; for the Jews accounted it as a monster that the Gentiles should be gathered unto them as if they should have heard that there had been men made of stones. Again, the immoderate love of their nation did hinder them from acknowledging the work of God. For we see that through this ambition and pride the Church was troubled; because the equality which did diminish their dignity was not tolerable. For which cause they did contend stoutly to bring the necks of the Gentiles under the yoke. But forasmuch as it was foretold by so many prophecies of the prophets, that the Church should be gathered of all people after the coming of the Messiah, and forasmuch as Christ had given commandment to his apostles touching the preaching of the gospel throughout the whole world, how can it be that the conversion of a few men should move some, as some strange thing, and should terrify other some, as if it were some monster? I answer, that whatsoever was foretold touching the calling of the Gentiles, it was so taken as if the Gentiles should be made subject to the law of Moses, that they might have a place in the Church. But the manner of the calling, the beginning whereof they saw then, was not only unknown, but it seemed to be quite contrary to reason. For they did dream that it was impossible that the Gentiles could be mixed with the sons of Abraham, and be made one body with them, (the ceremonies being taken away,) but that there should be great injury done to the covenant of God; for to what end served the law save only to be the mid wall to note out the disagreement? Secondly, because they were acquainted with that difference during their whole life, the unlooked-for newness of the thing doth so pierce them, that they did forget all that which ought to have quieted their minds. Finally, they do not straightway comprehend the mystery, which, as Paul teacheth, was unknown to the angels from the creation of the world.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

XI.

(1) And the apostles and brethren that were in Judæa . . .—The context implies that the tidings travelled, while Peter remained at Cæsarea, first probably to Joppa and Lydda, and afterwards to Jerusalem.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

Ver. 1. Had also received the word] Not only informed, but reformed: yea, so transformed the Churches were into the same image of the word from glory to glory, that they became at length conformed to Christ in holiness and righteoushess.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And the apostles and brethren - The Christians who Were in Judea.

Heard ... - So extraordinary an occurrence as that at Caesarea, the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles, and their reception into the church, would excite attention, and be likely to produce much sensitiveness in regard to the conduct of Peter and those with him. It was so contrary to all the ideas of the Jews, that it is not to be wondered at that it led to contention.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And brethren; the rest of the believers, who had not only one God to their Father, but one church to their mother, and were born of the same Spirit, and were fed by the same milk of the word of God.

The Gentiles had also received the word of God; this was a most incredible thing unto them who were of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and were not acquainted with that mystery that Abraham should have a seed of his faith, upon whom all the promises were entailed. These looked upon the Gentiles as most execrable persons, such as the apostle describes, Eph 2:12, that had no hope, and were without God; and therefore no less than a miracle, and that well attested, as this was, could make them change their opinion.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The First Gentile Church

1-18. The baptism of Cornelius discussed and approved at Jerusalem. Those Christians who maintained the need of observing the Ceremonial Law did not attack the baptism itself because, although they disliked it, our Lord's command to baptise all nations was too definite to be questioned. They attacked, therefore, St. Peter's undoubted breach of Jewish law and custom: 'Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them' (Act_11:3). What they apparently desired was, that if Gentiles were baptised at all, they should be regarded as an inferior class, and not allowed to eat at the same table with their Jewish superiors: cp. Gal_2:12. Peter did not discuss the general principle, but defended himself on the ground that he had received a special revelation authorising, and indeed commanding, him to act as he did in this particular case.

2. They that were of the circumcision] This may either mean the whole Church of Jerusalem in contrast with Cornelius and his friends, or the Judaising party in that Church which, perhaps, already existed, as it certainly did some years later (Act_15:1, Act_15:5).

18. The Church of Jerusalem unanimously endorsed Peter's action, doubtless because the case was an exceptional one, and was not likely to become a precedent. When St. Paul made a practice of doing what St. Peter had only done as a rare exception, the controversy was revived (Acts 15).

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now for and, A.V.; the brethren for brethren, A.V.; also had for had also, A.V., We can imagine how rapidly the news of the great revolution would travel to the metropolis of Jewish Christianity, and what a stir it would maim in that community. It does not appear what view James and the other apostles took.

HOMILETICS Vers. 1-28. The mystery.

The beginning and the close of this chapter refer to events of precisely similar character, which took place almost simultaneously, at all events without any concert or communication, in Palestine and in Syria; the reception of the Word of God by Gentiles, and their admission into the Church of God. It is difficult for us, after the lapse of eighteen centuries and a half, during which this has been the rule of the kingdom of heaven, to realize the startling strangeness of such an event when first brought to the knowledge of the then Church of Christ. That a wall of partition, which seemed to be built upon immovable foundations, and which had defied every effort to break it down through a period of between one and two thousand years, should suddenly fall flat down at the blast of the gospel trumpet, like the walls of Jericho of old; that a hidden purpose of God, which had been veiled and concealed for so many ages, should suddenly flash out and stand clearly revealed to the eyes of mankind at two remote spots of the earth; must have struck with astonishment the minds of the Jews of that age. St. Paul himself, after many years of successful work as the Apostle of the Gentiles, cannot speak without emotion and wonder of the great revolution in the religion of mankind. The admission of the Gentiles to be partakers of God"s promise in Christ by the gospel, and to be fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, was the great mystery which in other ages had not been made known to the sons of men, but was at length revealed to the apostles and prophets by the Spirit. His heart swelled, and his utterance rose as he recited that "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord". (Eph_3:1-11) And certainly we ought not to allow familiarity with this dispensation of the Divine wisdom to breed in us any contempt or overlooking of its infinite importance. The destinies of the human race, in its varieties of intellect, and civilization, and creed, and morals, and social and political institutions, ought ever to be a matter of the deepest concern to us. We have the certain knowledge that the door of repentance and faith is thrown open to all mankind. We know that God is no respecter of persons, and we know that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole world. If the Word of God could win its way in a cohort of Italian soldiers quartered in an Oriental city; if much people, in the dissolute city of Antioch, overrun as it was with every kind of superstition and extravagance of vice and luxury and pleasure, listened to the teaching of Barnabas and Saul, and were added to the Lord; surely we ought not to be fainthearted in communicating to the whole world, whether heathen, or Mohammedan, or Buddhist, the Word of truth which we have received of God. Oh for a simultaneous breathing of the Divine Spirit, which may quicken dead souls in every nation under heaven, and make Churches of Christ to spring up in vigor and beauty in all the dark places of the earth, to the praise of the glory of God"s grace in Jesus Christ!

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON.

Vers. 1-18. Rectification and enlargement.

It was not to be expected that so great an innovation as that of free communion with a Gentile would pass unchallenged in Jerusalem. Nor did it escape the criticism and condemnation of the "apostles and brethren" there (vers. 1, 2). From the interesting and animated scene described in the text, we conclude

I THAT GOOD MEN ARE OCCASIONALLY FOUND DOING THAT WHICH SEEMS HIGHLY CENSURABLE TO THE GODLY. We can hardly realize the intensity of the indignation which breathed and glowed in the accusing words, "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them" (ver. 3). Peter had done an act which was wholly irregular and positively unlawful. What did he mean by it? We know that he had simply followed the instructions which he had received from Christ, and that he could not possibly have acted otherwise without downright disobedience How many times, in what various spheres, under what different conditions, have good men found themselves placed by their very faithfulness in a position of "contention" (ver. 2) with their brethren, either respecting

(1) a point of doctrine (e.g. "the Reformation"), or

(2) a matter of Church government (e.g. the way in which the Church should be officered, or the relation in which it should stand to the civil power), or

(3) a method of evangelization, or

(4) the position which should be taken toward other Christian communities! In these and similar matters the best and wisest of men have occasionally found themselves compelled to confront the strong censures of those with whom they were in communion. It is a most painful position to have to excite the indignation of good men, but it may be our plain and bounden duty so to do.

II THAT OFTEN A SIMPLE NARRATION OF THE FACTS IS THE BEST POSSIBLE DEFENCE. "Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order" (ver. 4). He told the whole story in its simplicity (vers. 5-16). That was enough: it disarmed his accusers; they had nothing to reply; they accepted his defense; "They held their peace" (ver. 18). If some of them went no further than ceasing to complain, others acknowledged that a new step was taken, and that the Church was warranted in "going forward." It is often, if not always, the wisest of all plans to let the simple facts speak for us. If our complaining brethren knew as much as we know, they would not condemn. We have but to let in the light, and we shall be acquitted and perhaps commended.

III THAT GOD WILL VINDICATE HIS OWN. Peter"s one great argument was that he had done everything under Divine direction (see vers. 5, 9, 12, 15, 16). He summed it all up in the strong, overwhelming consideration, "What was I that I could withstand God?" (ver. 17). By his marked and manifest interposition, God had sustained his servant, and had given him the means of justifying his conduct when it came before the tribunal of his fellows. If wisdom is not always justified of her children at once, it will be in time. Unto the upright there will arise light in the darkness. (Psa_112:4) God may desire his servant to place himself in an attitude of opposition to his friends, and to bear the pain of their blows; but he will at length later, if not sooner vindicate that servant, and give him the greater honor for the shame he bore at his bidding.

IV THAT WE SHOULD KEEP OURSELVES FREE FOR THE EXCULPATION OF MEN AND FOR OUR OWN SPIRITUAL ENLARGEMENT. The apostles and brethren had to own that Peter was right, and, at the same time, to receive into their mind a larger and nobler view of Christian truth. Happily they were free to do so; otherwise there would have been a bitter separation and an injurious rupture.

1. However wrong good men may seem to us to be, let us remember that it is possible that it is we and not they who are mistaken. We may be very confident we are right, but it is the most positive who are the most fallible of men.

2. Let us be ready to enlarge our view as God gives us light. "He has yet more light and truth to break forth from his Word." Wisdom does not dwell with us. Out of the heavenly treasury there are riches of truth still to be dispensed. A docile Church will ever be learning and acquiring. There are some men who, by their guilty stubbornness, will block the way of the chariot of God; there are others who will take up the stones and prepare the path that it may go swiftly on its benignant course. Let ours be the spirit of the apostles and brethren at Jerusalem, who, when they had listened and learned, said, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. C.

HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON Vers. 1-18. The spirit of sect and the spirit of the gospel.

I SECTARIAN SUSPICIONS. In Judaea are the head-quarters of this sectarian spirit. There it centers and rankles. The very tidings which fill the generous spirit with joy fill the sectarian with jealousy. They hear that the Gentiles have received the Word of God. Happy news! Alas that any should regard them otherwise! But to the ideas of the sectarian any change is appalling which threatens to break down the fence and wall of the sect, and compel him to widen the extent of his fellowship. So the sectarians quarrel with Peter. Their charge is that he has visited the uncircumcised heathen and eaten with them.

II THE TRUTH ELICITED BY OPPOSITION. God overrules all things for good, makes the wrath of man to praise him, brings the truth into clearer manifestation by the very means of resistance to it. Let us not be too severe on the sectarian, if he be honest in his opposition. Far more pernicious the hypocritical friend than the sincere and downright foe. Were every innovation tamely submitted to without inquiry, progress would not be so sound. It is by overcoming objectors that truth triumphs, not by silencing them. And again, facts are the best arguments. Once more Peter relates the vision at Joppa. To overcome others" objections, the best way is to show how our own objections have been overcome. The great point of opposition is the repugnance, inborn and strengthened by education, of the Jew to certain objects viewed by him as common or unclean. The great difficulty of overcoming the feeling lies in the fact that it is interwoven with all the best associations of the mind. The man, having learned the idea of holiness by means of a sharp physical distinction, fears that he shall lose the idea itself if that distinction be obliterated. No mere arguments in words will avail. But Peter can exhibit the argument of facts. Their fitting into one another with an invincible Divine logic can neither be denied nor refuted. The coincidence of the revelation to the centurion and to Peter has been already dwelt upon in previous sections. The end is the falling of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples at the very moment when the Jew and the Gentiles are brought together and Peter opens his mouth to speak.

III THE TRUTH OF THE PRESENT LIGHTS UP THE PROPHETIC DECLARATIONS OF THE PAST. Words deep in meaning slumber in the mind until the revealing event takes place. Then they are suddenly quickened into life and start up in all their power. Peter remembers the word of the Lord on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is in contrast to that of John at the opening of the evangelical era. It surpassed that of John as the positive surpasses the negative; the entrance into blessing, the denial of and departure from evil. The conclusion, then, of the whole is that the facts are irresistible. In these lie the clear intimations of providential will. Neither apostle nor angel can contend against fads, whether they refer to the outer world and are construed by scientific law, or to the inner world and are known by the devout soul as revelations and inspirations. The Gentile is placed on an equality with the Jew in reference to the blessings of the gospel; one does not stand in the vestibule, the other in the interior of the new temple, but both are gathered to the heart of God, who reconciles us to himself by Jesus Christ. A common faith in him entitles us all to the appellation" sons of God," and therefore brethren amongst one another: "Ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Thus, when the hour strikes, does God silence controversy, causes his voice alone to be heard, and presently draws forth a burst of praise from human hearts. Yes; at bottom the heart loves truth, and craves the revelation of love. "God then hath given the nations repentance unto life!" The signs of the times point to a similar revolution of the large and generous spirit of the gospel. May we be ready to meet it, and not be found amongst those who contend against the light and fight against God, but amongst those who herald with joy and thankfulness the approach of the new dawn; for the Sun of Righteousness shall arise to those that fear his Name with healing in his wings. J.

HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD Vers. 1-18. The Church of God set on the new foundation of liberty.

I The only stable foundation of SPIRITUAL FELLOWSHIP. Mutual confidence. Common dependence on the Spirit of God. Free speech. Entire understanding of the rule of life. Peter himself cannot be allowed to violate accepted principles without being called to account. He frankly explains and justifies his conduct. The old leaven of Judaism was at work; but the antidote was there obedience to the Spirit.

II The true conditions of SPIRITUAL ADVANCEMENT. The individual not despotically silenced, but called to his true place as one of the community, a member of the body, supplying his portion of new light. The standard of reference, not Peter"s private Opinion, or the Church"s decision after discussion, but the manifestation of the Spirit in facts and undoubted testimony. There were seven trustworthy witnesses. Who was I, that I could withstand God?" Difference between such a revelation and these private, isolated assertions of inspiration such as Swedenborg"s and others.

III THE BREAKING DOWN OF THE "MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION" between Jew and Gentile; glory to God. The old circumcision superseded by the new baptism. Repentance granted to all. The free gift of the Spirit. R.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Peter’s Defense against the Judaizing Brethren.

The attack:

v. 1. And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the Word of God.

v. 2. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

v. 3. saying, Thou wentest into men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

From the entire account of Luke in the Acts it is evident that the inspiration of the apostles pertained to their office of teaching only, and that they had no unusual powers of penetration and enlightenment otherwise. Thus the apostles, together with the other members of the congregation in Jerusalem, knew nothing of Saul’s change of heart and therefore mistrusted him, chap. 9:26. And here the apostles as well as the brethren in Judea labored under the handicap of a foolish and uncharitable prejudice. The report came to them that the Gentiles, by the ministry of Peter, had received the Word of the Lord. It was a matter, not of joyful astonishment, but of serious apprehension to them. When Peter, therefore, came up to Jerusalem, returning from the lowlands of Caesarea and the Plain of Sharon, those of the circumcision, not the Jews as distinguished from the Gentiles, but the strict Judaizing Christians of Jerusalem, probably such as had been priests or had belonged to the Pharisees, contended or disputed with him, they reproached him with the fact that he had entered, on terms of equal footing and intimacy, into the home of uncircumcised men, of heathen people, and had even eaten with them, the implication being that he might easily have partaken of food which was unclean to Jews and thus have defiled himself. That the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles also, that such as did not belong to the race of the Jews should be accepted in the kingdom of the Messiah, was against all usage and feeling of the Jewish Christians. The fact that the prophets, not once, but often, had prophesied of the entry of the Gentiles into the kingdom of Christ, Isa 60:3; Isa 49:6, seems to have escaped their minds; they had not understood these passages properly, they had to learn gradually. Note: There are many verses, passages, and sections in Scriptures which even believing Christians cannot grasp and understand at once. Even after Christ has been accepted, the enlightenment proceeds very slowly. If the Christians, however, will but continue to search, God will, step by step, lead them more deeply into the knowledge of the truth. And thus even such passages as are offensive at first reading will gradually receive their proper setting in relation to the Bible as a whole. Only we must make all parts of the revelation of God serve that one great fact, the justification of all sinners through faith in Christ Jesus, then the arrangement and the relative importance of the various parts of Scripture will follow as a matter of course.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 11:13-14

I. God’s word treats all men as needing to be saved.

II. God’s word gives us to understand that all men can be saved.

III. God’s word prescribes the conditions of every man’s being saved.

IV. God’s word settles the conclusion that even good men, unconverted, cannot be saved.

C. S. Robinson, Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iii., p. 352.

Reference: Act 11:13, Act 11:14.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iii., p. 252.

Act 11:18

I. It was God’s will that, by Jew and Gentile, by heretic and orthodox, by men of the East and men of the West, the truth should be tried and sifted,—the power of the word brought out, and the might of His Spirit demonstrated. Had Judaism prevailed, the sacred spark of Divine life must have been overlaid and ultimately extinguished. But, for the recognition of the Unity of God, for the conservation of the moral conscience, for the maintenance of the record of God’s everlasting covenant, it was necessary that the Jewish element should abide and be incorporated. Long was the struggle before it would consent to pass into its place of testifying to Christ, and to take its yoke off the shoulders of the brethren. Nor let us think that it is yet at an end. In the whole ascetical and ceremonial system of Rome we have the successor of the Jewish spirit and practice.

II. Still, then, the conflict is being maintained, and let us never forget it. We stand on the immovable basis of Gentile Christianity. We know no difference of race or colour, of sex or condition in life; to us there is neither Jew nor Gentile, Greek nor barbarian, bond nor free. The struggle lasts, but the future is not without largeness of promise and brightness of hope. Day by day men stand up among us witnessing to these truths; lives are spent and souls are called to glory; of Christ’s fulness we are receiving and grace for grace. And as, close upon the end of the first century, a Christian father could make it his boast that there was not a known land where God the Father was not called on through His Son Jesus Christ, so we, past the noontide of the nineteenth great secular day, may boast, by the same grace of God, that there is not a land on the now revealed earth where the free doctrines of salvation by individual faith and individual sanctification are not proclaimed on the testimony of the Word of God.

H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. iii., p. 235.

References: Act 11:18.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. i., No. 44; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 545.

Act 11:19-26

The Church at Antioch.

I. This church was established by lay agency.

II. It was a church established among the Gentiles. The text marks a new epoch in the history of the kingdom of God Jesus Christ had plainly intimated that the Gentiles also were to be admitted into the Christian fold. The Jewish Church was like the chrysalis containing life in an undeveloped state; the Christian Church is the chrysalis emerging in the winged butterfly,—it looks disdainfully upon boundaries and soars high over barriers.

III. This Gentile church was flourishing in grace. Every true minister will, like Barnabas, strive to promote the growth of grace and knowledge in the Church; and if he cannot accomplish the twofold work himself, he will, like Barnabas, seek another to help him. To our knowledge let us add grace; both are necessary in order to perfection in religion.

J. C. Jones, Studies in the Acts, p. 266.

Reference: Act 11:20.—Expositor, 1st series, vol. ix., No. 385.

Act 11:20-21

I. Notice the spontaneous impulse which these men obeyed. They find themselves rejoicing in a great Saviour-Friend. They see all around them men who need Him, and that is enough. They obey the promptings of the voice within, and lay the foundations of the first Gentile church. (1) Such a spontaneous impulse is ever the natural result of our own personal possession of Christ. A heart warmed by the love of Christ needs to express its love, and will give it forth, as certainly as light must radiate from its centre, or heat from a fire. (2) True kindliness of heart creates the same impulse. We cannot truly possess the treasure for ourselves without pity for those who have it not. (3) Loyalty to Christ creates the same impulse. If we are true to our Lord, we shall feel that we cannot but speak up and out for Him, and that all the more where His name is unloved and unhonoured.

II. This incident suggests the universal obligation on all Christians to make known Christ. These men were not officials. In these early days the Church had a very loose organisation. But the fugitives in our narrative seem to have had among them none even of the humble officers of primitive times. Every Christian is solemnly bound to fulfil the Divine intention, and to take heed to the imperative command, "Freely ye have received, freely give."

III. Observe the simple message which they proclaimed. Their message was but the proclamation of their own personal experience. They had found Jesus for themselves to be lover and Lord, friend and Saviour of their souls, and the joy they had received they sought to share with these Greeks, worshippers of gods and lords many.

IV. Notice the mighty Helper who prospered their work. "The hand of the Lord was with them." How little any of us know what shall become of our poor work, under His fostering care. How little these men knew that they were laying the foundations of the great change which was to transform the Christian community from a Jewish sect into a world-embracing church. Let us sow the seed, and He will give it a body as it pleaseth Him.

A. Maclaren, The Secret of Power, p. 294.

References: Act 11:20, Act 11:21.—Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 113; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. v., p. 262. Act 11:21.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxii., No. 1282. Act 11:22, Act 11:23.—J. Keble, Sermons for Saints’ Days, p. 234.

Act 11:23

I. Notice, first, what Barnabas saw. The "grace of God" here was very probably the specific meaning of the miraculous working of the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of Christ at work in men’s hearts, making them pure and gentle, simple and unworldly, refining their characters, elevating their aims, toning their being into accord with the music of His life, is the true proof that men are Christians, and that communities of such are churches of His.

II. What he felt: "He was glad." It was a triumph of Christian principle to recognise the grace of God under new forms and in so strange a place; it was a greater triumph to hail it with rejoicing. As our eyes travel over the wide field of Christendom, and our memories go back over the long ages of the story of the Church, let gladness, and not wonder or reluctance, be the temper with which we see the graces of Christian character lifting their meek blossoms in any corners strange to us, and breathing their fragrance over the pastures of the wilderness.

III. What he said: "He exhorted them all that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord." The first thing that strikes one about this all-sufficient directory for the Christian life is the emphasis with which it sets forth the Lord as the sole object to be grasped and held. The sum of all objective religion is Christ; the sum of all subjective religion is cleaving to Him.

A. Maclaren, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 257.

References: Act 11:23.—Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 114; Good Words, vol. iii., p. 380; Homilist, 3rd series, vol. iv., p. 291.

Act 11:24

Consistency of Human and Divine Affections.

I. There is no hint given that Barnabas acted otherwise than well and wisely in the course he pursued with reference to John Mark. He is declared to have been "a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of faith," and St. Paul is related to have recognised after many years the excellence and profitableness of the young disciple whose inconstancy had offended him at first so deeply.

It may be asked what lesson or inference we may draw from this narrative. And I answer at once, that we gather from it the compatibility of heavenly with earthly duties, and the consistency of human with Divine affections. There is here set before us the example of a good man, and we behold him insist on reconciling the high responsibilities of his apostolic order with the claims which arise out of the ties of kindred—his natural affection for his sister’s son. It was grievous, doubtless, that anything which that young man had done should have led to sharp contention; but we know from the sequel of the sacred story that it was Paul who had judged with undue severity, not Barnabas who had acted with undue indulgence. Here, then, the consistency of human with Divine affections is set before us.

II. Such teaching ought to bring something of comfort to beings like ourselves. God has placed us in this world, and made us what we are. It is He who has surrounded us with such a curious and complicated network of relationships, duties, ties. And it is incredible that these ought to be considered in the light of instruments of our ruin, traps and snares in our way. Rather as methods of our probation and helps to our perfection should every one of them be welcomed, weighed, and dealt with. For it is certain that there is room both for the claims of friendship and the ties of blood, on the one hand; for God’s service and a due regard for His honour and glory on the other.

J. W. Burgon, Ninety-one Short Sermons, No. 58.

References: Act 11:24.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. vi., p. 338; J. A. Picton, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 273; Preacher’s Monthly. vol. v., p. 305. Act 11:26.—Ibid., vol. x., p. 321; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 236; R. W. Church, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxviii., p. 163; see also Discipline of the Christian Character. Act 11:29.—J. Edmunds, Sixty Sermons, p. 480. Act 12:1-3.—T. Gasquoine, Christian World Pulpit, vol. vii., p. 364; J. Keble, Sermons for Saints’ Days, p. 314. Act 12:1-25.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 136. Act 12:12.—G. Brooks, Five Hundred Outlines, p. 218; J. Keble, Sermons for Saints’ Days, p. 214.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. How the Jews, apprehending that Christ and his grace had been only promised and confined to themselves, the call and conversion of the Gentiles became a dreadful stumbling-block unto them, even to the believing as well as the unbelieving Jews.

Hereupon observe, 2. How they contended with Peter for eating and conversing with the Gentiles, and especially for admitting them into the gospel-communion without circumcision: Whereas, although God forbad marriages with the Gentiles, he never forbad commerce and conversation with them: No conversation with the Gentiles, in order to the gaining of the Gentiles unto God, ws ever forbidden by God; but only such as might withdraw the Jews from God, and corrupt them by idolatry.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

PETER’S REPORT AT JERUSALEM

1-13. Immediately after Peter’s glorious revival at Caesarea he goes straight to Jerusalem, accompanied by the six Joppa brethren who had witnessed the new departure and the mighty work of God at the house of Cornelius. The news is already flown on the wings of the wind to Jerusalem, stirring apostles, prophets, elders and brethren with the momentum of an earthquake. This departure from the time-honored institutions of their fathers, so sudden, radical, decisive and significant, must receive summary attention at headquarters and be settled at once and forever. So bold Peter faces the grave council in the mother church at Jerusalem, rehearses to them his vision at Joppa, and testifies to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the Gentiles at Caesarea, proving it all by those six faithful witnesses who had accompanied him throughout and now stand by his side in presence of all the apostles. Of course no trouble whatever arises from this radical, downright and outright revolution, though undreamed of hitherto; and why? Simply because all of the apostles and primitive saints fully recognized the leadership of the Holy Ghost. They are acquainted with Him. He dwelt in them, and they knew His voice and His works. For this reason there never was a schism in the Apostolic church, so long as they were true to Pentecostal experience and the Holy Ghost. When former generations went up to heaven and others succeeded who knew not God, then they founded human ecclesiasticisms and established church government to suit themselves, ignoring the sole right of the Holy Ghost to rule the church, and relegating Him back to the Apostolic age, and congratulating themselves that the days of miracles were past and they can make laws and manage the church to suit themselves. Right here is where human and Satanic usurpation of the divine right to rule the church came in, with the roll of ages developing into all the complicated machinery of priestcraft, prelacy and popery.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

XI: 1 3. The novel scene which had transpired in Cæsarea was soon reported abroad over the country. (1) “ Now the apostles and brethren throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God. (2) And when Peter went up to Jerusalem, they of the circumcision disputed with him, (3) saying, You went into the house of men uncircumcised, and did eat with them.” The prejudice from which Peter had been delivered was still preying upon the hearts of his Jewish brethren, including the other apostles. The same change is now to be wrought in them which had already been effected in him. But there is no repetition, in their case, of the vision and voices which had occurred in his. On the contrary, there is nothing brought to bear upon them but what is contained in the words of Peter.

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Acts Chapter 11

Chapter 11:19 begins the narration of the new order of things by which the ministry of Paul is distinguished. Among those who were scattered abroad on the occasion of Stephen’s death, and who went as far even as Antioch preaching the Lord Jesus, there were some who, being men of Cyprus and Cyrene, were more habitually connected with Greeks. They addressed the Greeks therefore in this ancient capital of the Seleucidae, and many received their word and turned to the Lord. The assembly at Jerusalem, already prepared through the conversion of Cornelius, by which God had shewn them the entering in of the Gentiles, accept this event also and send Barnabas-himself a man of Cyprus-to Antioch. A good man and filled with the Holy Ghost, his heart is full of joy on seeing this work of the grace of God; and much people is added unto the Lord.

As yet all is linked with the work at Jerusalem, although extending now to the Gentiles. Barnabas, apparently no longer sufficient for the work and at all events led of God, departs in search of Saul, who had gone to Tarsus, when they sought to kill him at Jerusalem. And these two meet with the assembly at Antioch, teaching much people. Still everything takes place in connection with Jerusalem, whence some prophets come down and announce a famine. The links between the flock and Jerusalem as a centre are shewn and strengthened, by the sending of relief to that religious metropolis of Judaism, and of Christianity looked at as having its commencement in the Jewish remnant who believed in Jesus as the Christ.

Barnabas and Saul are themselves charged with this service, and go up to Jerusalem to accomplish it. This circumstance carries us back to Jerusalem, where the Spirit has still something to shew us of the ways of God.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1, 2. They of the circumcision contended with him. The Jewish Christians, of whom the church at Jerusalem was entirely composed. The Gentiles of Cæsarea were the first uncircumcised persons admitted, the Samaritans being a circumcised people. The apostles and church generally seemed to understand that Jesus was the world's Savior, but thought that all who came to him must accept Judaism also and be circumcised before baptism. How deep-rooted their ideas were is shown by Peter's own case. It took (1) a vision, (2) the command of the Lord, (3) the call of Cornelius, and (4) the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles, to remove his and his brethren's scruples about baptizing the Gentiles. It is, therefore, no wonder that his course was called in question.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Peter arrives in Jerusalem and begins talking to the Jews there.

General Information:

This is the beginning of a new event in the story.

Now

This marks a new part of the story. (See: Introduction of a New Event)

the brothers

The phrase "brothers" here refers to the believers in Judea.

who were in Judea

"who were in the province of Judea"

had received the word of God

This expression refers to the fact that the Gentiles believed the gospel message about Jesus. AT: "believed the message of God about Jesus" (See: Metonymy)

had come up to Jerusalem

Jerusalem was higher than almost any other place in Israel, so it was normal for Israelites to speak of coming up to Jerusalem and going down from it.

they who belonged to the circumcision group

This is a reference to some of the Jews who believed that every believer must be circumcised. AT: "some Jewish believers in Jerusalem who wanted all followers of Christ to be circumcized" (See: Metonymy)

uncircumcised men

The phrase "uncircumcised men" refers to Gentiles. (See: Metonymy)

ate with them

It was against Jewish tradition for Jews to eat with Gentiles.

translationWords

apostle

brother

Judea

Gentile

receive

word of God

Peter

Jerusalem

circumcise

circumcise

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

In Judaea [κατα την ιουδαιαν] . More correctly, "throughout Judaea."

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.