Acts 11 commentary

ACTS 11 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Peter Explains His Actions
1 The apostles and the believers throughout Judea
heard that the Gentiles also had received the word
of God.
BAR ES, "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.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea,.... The rest of the
twelve apostles, and the private members of the churches that were in Judea, for there
were in it now more churches than that at Jerusalem, Act_9:31
heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God; as well as Samaria,
Act_8:14 the news by some means or other were quickly brought to them, and no doubt
but they also heard that they had received the Holy Ghost, his extraordinary gifts, as well
as his special grace, though no mention is made of them.
HE RY, "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.
JAMISO ,"Act_11:1-18. Peter vindicates himself before the church in Jerusalem for
his procedure towards the gentiles.
the apostles and brethren ... in Judea — rather, “throughout Judea.”
HAWKER 1-18, "And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the
Gentiles had also received the word of God. (2) And when Peter was come up to
Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, (3) Saying, Thou
wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. (4) But Peter rehearsed the
matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, (5) I was in the
city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had
been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: (6)
Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts
of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. (7) And I heard a
voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. (8) But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing
common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. (9) But the voice answered
me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (10) And
this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. (11) And, behold,
immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from
Caesarea unto me. (12) And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting.
Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house: (13)
And he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto
him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; (14) Who shall tell
thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. (15) And as I began to speak,
the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. (16) Then remembered I the word
of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost. (17) Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto
us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? (18)
When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then

hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
It will not be necessary to detain the Reader long over these verses, seeing they are but a
recapitulation of what passed on the occasion of Cornelius’s conversion, and are
contained in the preceding Chapter, What I would chiefly request might be noticed, is,
the conduct of the Church, in reproving Peter; and the very gracious behavior of the
Apostle, in his modest defense of himself, in answer. Both are very instructive. The
Apostles and Brethren which were in Judea, seem to have manifested a different
conduct, upon a former occasion, when tidings was brought to them, that Samaria had
received the word of God: for they sent upon that account, Peter and John to them, by
way of comfort and confirmation. See Act_8:14-15. But here the reverse seems to have
actuated them. It serves to teach us, how improper all hasty judgments are. The best of
men, and the best of Churches, and in the best of times, are but men of like passions
with ourselves. It is blessed to know it. And it is blessed to be humbled under a sense of
it. Nothing more sweetly and powerfully preacheth Christ, than when taught our
nothingness without him.
What a beautiful example Peter holds forth, both to ministers and people, in the
quietness and meekness of mind, he manifested to the reproaches, with which he was
first received by the Church, on his return. Caesarea from Jerusalem was little short of
seventy-five miles. And it was a sad reception, which they gave him in their reproof when
he went up from the house of Cornelius to Jerusalem, to inform the Church of what had
happened. Peter knew who had sent him. And he was conscious of the Lord’s blessing
upon his labors. These things, no doubt, fortified his mind, and enabled him to bear all
their reproaches. The Lord’s faithful people may, and ought to learn from hence, that
God’s services, when they are employed in them by Him, and blessed in them by Him,
will be sure to call forth the displeasure of men; yea, even the Lord’s own people, (as was
the case here,) shall sometimes be prompted by the enemy, to afflict their brethren,
ignorant of what they do. Sometimes our false misconception of things, sometimes our
judging by report too hastily; and sometimes, and perhaps not unfrequently, from the
remains of indwelling corruption, jealousies creep in our hearts, and we feel somewhat
which ought not to be, rising there. The Church complained of it, when she said; my
mother’s children were angry with me, Son_1:6. Reader! if you and I know with Paul, the
plague of our own hearts; and that even in ourselves corruptions arise, which war
against the soul and are bringing us into captivity, into the law of sin which is in our
members; how can we wonder that others, who neither know our motives of conduct,
nor the leadings of them, should sometimes reproach us?
And while such views of the common infirmity of nature, will, under grace, tend to
soften the minds of the Lord’s people, and suppress anger at any of their little unkind
misconstruction of conduct when we are conscious we have not merited their
displeasure; such will in an eminent degree under the Lord, preserve faithful ministers
of Jesus, as Peter, in the instance before us, in patience to possess their souls, when the
world, or still more the mistaken men in the Church, come forth to reprove them. To
shew displeasure because we know ourselves to be right, is not the plan to correct them
that are wrong. It is rather turning that which is lame out of the way. How much better,
like the Apostle, in brotherly affection to submit as he did, the point to their cool
decision: and how soon were their tempers changed, and the Lord glorified! This is what
the Apostle Paul called, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves. For, said
he, the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men: and an example of
the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity, 1Ti_4:12.

CALVI , "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.
COFFMA , "There is a close relationship in Acts 9,10,11. In Acts 9, the "name
bearer," Saul of Tarsus, was chosen of God to bear the new name before Gentiles,
kings and children of Israel; in Acts 10, the acceptance of Gentiles into the church of
Christ was adopted as mandatory by the apostle Peter; and in this chapter, such
acceptance of Gentiles was recognized as the official policy of the whole church, and
the development of the first great Gentile congregation was recorded, this having
taken place at Antioch. The prior conditions for the giving of the new name having
been fulfilled by these developments, the new name was given at Antioch (Acts
11:26).
First, there is the record of Peter's defense of his conduct in the matter of association
with Gentiles, resulting in full approval by the entire church (Acts 11:1-18).
The third great section of Acts begins with Acts 11:19. Here begins the record of the
movement of the church toward "the uttermost parts of the earth." Luke began this
section with a retrogression to the situation as he had explained it in Acts 8:1, that
is, to the conditions prevailing immediately after the martyrdom of Stephen. Even
from that early time, there had existed progressive efforts on the part of some to
enlist Gentiles, especially at Antioch.

Then came the mission of Barnabas from Jerusalem (Acts 11:22), his bringing of
Saul to Tarsus (Acts 11:25), and the giving of the new name by "the mouth of the
Lord" (Acts 11:26).
ow the apostles and the brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles also
had received the word of God. (Acts 11:1)
PETER O THE DEFE SIVE
The implication at the close of the preceding chapter that perhaps Peter remained a
while at Caesarea leads to the supposition that the startling news of what had
occurred in the house of Cornelius had outrun Peter, arriving in Jerusalem before
he did. Boles thought that "The news came to Jerusalem before Peter left
Caesarea."[1] In any case, an event of such vast implications was certainly one of
supreme interest.
E D OTE:
[1] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on the Acts ( ashville: The Gospel Advocate
Company, 1953), p. 176.
BE SO 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, Acts 21:20-21; and Peter himself had been of that mind
till he had received the vision, (see chap, Acts 10:28,) and even after the vision
withdrew himself from the believing Gentiles for fear of the Jews, Galatians 2:12;
and they of the dispersion preached to the Jews only, Acts 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.
BARCLAY 1-10, "The importance that Luke attached to this incident is shown by
the amount of space he devoted to it. In ancient times a writer had by no means

unlimited space. The book form had not come into use. Writers used rolls of a
material called papyrus, which was the forerunner of paper and was made of the
pith of the papyrus plant, a kind of bulrush. ow a roll is an unwieldy thing and the
longest roll that was used was about thirty-five feet long which would be almost
precisely the length required to hold the book of Acts. Into that space Luke had
almost endless material to fit. He must have selected with the greatest care what he
was going to set down; and yet he finds the story of Peter and Cornelius of such
importance that he twice relates it in full.
Luke was right. We usually do not realize how near Christianity was to becoming
only another kind of Judaism. All the first Christians were Jews and the whole
tradition and outlook of Judaism would have moved them to keep this new wonder
to themselves and to believe that God could not possibly have meant it for the
Gentiles. Luke sees this incident as a notable mile-stone on the road along which the
Church was groping its way to the conception of a world for Christ.
CO STABLE, "Criticism of Peter's conduct 11:1-3
ews of what had happened in Cornelius' house spread quickly throughout Judea.
"The brethren" (Acts 11:1) and "those who were circumcised" (Acts 11:2) refer to
Jewish Christians, not unsaved Jews. Peter's response to their criticism of him
makes this clear (e.g., Acts 11:15). They objected to his having had contact with
uncircumcised Gentiles, particularly eating with them (Acts 11:3). Apparently Peter
ate with his host while he was with him for several days (Acts 10:48), though Luke
did not record this. The same taboo that had bothered Peter was bothering his
Jewish brethren (cf. Acts 10:28). They undoubtedly would have felt concern over
the non-Christian Jews' reaction to themselves. Peter's actions in Caesarea could
only bring more persecution on the Jewish Christians from the unsaved Jews (cf.
Acts 7:54 to Acts 8:3).
"It is possible to hear a subtile echo of Jesus' critics in Acts 11:3. Jesus was also
accused of eating with or lodging with the wrong kind of people.... ow Peter must
face the kind of criticism that Jesus faced, arising this time from the circle of Jesus'
disciples." [ ote: Tannehill, 2:137.]
"It is plain that Peter was not regarded as any kind of pope or overlord." [ ote:
Robertson, 3:152.]
Verses 1-18
The response of the Jerusalem church 11:1-18
Peter's actions in Caesarea drew criticism from conservative Jews. Luke wrote this
pericope to enable his readers to understand and appreciate more fully God's
acceptance of Gentiles into the church as Gentiles. An additional purpose was to
present this acceptance as essential to the fulfillment of the Great Commission. The
leaders of the Jerusalem church recognized what God was doing in bringing
Gentiles into the church, as they had done formerly with the Samaritan believers in
Jesus (Acts 8:14-25). Luke documented this recognition in this pericope because it
plays an important role in proving the distinction between Israel and the church
and explaining the worldwide mission of the church.

HOLE, "Verses 1-30
THIS CHAPTER OPE S with the stir which was created in Jerusalem by these
happenings in Caesarea. Those who had strong Jewish prejudices contended with
Peter over his actions. This led Peter to rehearse the matter from the beginning and
set it forth in order, so that all might see that the thing was distinctly of God. It is
remarkable that the Spirit of God has thought it well to put on record Peter’s own
account, as well as that given us by Luke as an historian, in the previous chapter.
This emphasizes the importance of what happened so obscurely in the house of the
Roman officer. It was in truth an epoch-making event.
In Peter’s account we naturally have his side of the story rather than that of
Cornelius. Yet he does furnish us with one detail as to the angel’s message to
Cornelius, which is not mentioned in the previous chapter. Peter was to tell him
“words,” whereby he and all his house should be “saved.” The law demands works
from men: the Gospel brings words to men, and those words lead them to salvation,
if believed. ote also that they were not “saved” until they had heard the Gospel,
and believed it; although without a doubt there had been a work of God in the
hearts of these people, which led them to seek after God.
In verses Acts 11:15-16 we see that Peter recognized in the gift of the Spirit to
Cornelius a baptism of the Spirit, supplementary to that which had been realized in
Jerusalem at the beginning. It was God doing for believing Gentiles what He had
previously done for believing Jews. God put both on the same footing, and who was
Peter or anyone else to withstand God?
This plain and straightforward account given by Peter silenced all opposition:
indeed grace so wrought in the hearts of those who had objected, that they not only
recognized that God had granted to the Gentiles “repentance unto life,” but they
glorified God for doing it. They attributed repentance to the gift of God, just as faith
is attributed to His gift in Ephesians 2:8.
With verse Acts 11:19, we leave Peter and pick up the thread from Acts 8:1. In
between, we have had Philip’s evangelistic labours, the conversion of Saul, who is to
be the Apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter’s activities, culminating in his opening in a
formal way the door of faith to the Gentiles. We now discover that while the mass of
believers scattered by persecution carried the Gospel with them, but preached it
only to the Jews, there were some from Cyprus and Cyrene who, arrived at Antioch,
began to preach to Greeks, declaring Jesus as Lord, for indeed He is Lord of ALL.
These men, then, began to evangelize Gentiles, which was exactly the special
business which the Holy Ghost now had on hand. As a consequence surprising
results followed. God’s hand worked with them, though they were men of no
particular note, and a great multitude believed and turned to the Lord.
Thus the first Gentile church was formed, and the work speedily reached such
dimensions as to attract attention from the church in Jerusalem, and lead them to
depute Barnabas to visit them. Barnabas came and instantly recognized a true work

of the grace of God. Instead of being jealous that others than himself or the leaders
in Jerusalem had been used of God for this, he was glad and he furthered the work
by his exhortations. But then he was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost and of
faith, and so he cared not for his own reputation but for the glory of Christ. His
exhortation was that as they had begun with faith in the Lord so they should
continue to cleave to the Lord with purpose of heart. The working of God’s grace
was the great thing with Barnabas, no matter through whom it was effected. How
good it would have been had the spirit of Barnabas prevailed all through the
church’s history.
Another thing characterized this good man, Barnabas. He evidently recognised his
own limitations. He felt that another than himself was the one to be specially used to
instruct these Gentile converts, and so he went off to fetch Saul. Barnabas appears
to have been the exhorter and Saul the teacher, and for a whole year they gave
themselves to this work. And at Antioch, significantly enough, the name “Christian”
first sprang up. It is to be noted how the Lordship of Christ is stressed in this
account of the work at Antioch; and where Christ is heartily and consistently owned
as Lord, there believers so behave themselves as to provoke the onlookers to name
them Christians. By the time Acts 26:1-32 is reached we find that Agrippa knows
the name. In 1 Peter 4:16 we find the Spirit of God accepting the name as a
satisfactory one.
At the end of this chapter we are permitted to see how freely servants of God, such
as prophets, moved about between the various churches. Gifts, granted in the
church, are to be used in a universal and not merely a local way. So it came to pass
that through Agabus, a prophet from Jerusalem, the church at Antioch was
apprized of a coming famine, and took steps in advance to meet the anticipated need
of the saints in Judaea. Thus early did the Gentile believers have opportunity to
express love towards their Jewish brethren.
KRETZMA , "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. ote: 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.
PULPIT, "Acts 11:1-28
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" (Ephesians 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!
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. or did it escape the criticism and
condemnation of the "apostles and brethren" there (Acts 11:1, Acts 11:2). From the
interesting and animated scene described in the text, we conclude—
I. THAT GOOD ME ARE OCCASIO ALLY FOU D DOI G THAT WHICH
SEEMS HIGHLY CE SURABLE 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" (Acts 11:3). 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" (Acts 11:2) with their brethren, either
respecting
II. THAT OFTE A SIMPLE ARRATIO OF THE FACTS IS THE BEST
POSSIBLE DEFE CE. "Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and

expounded it by order" (Acts 11:4). He told the whole story in its simplicity (Acts
11:5-16). That was enough: it disarmed his accusers; they had nothing to reply; they
accepted his defense; "They held their peace" (Acts 11:18). 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 VI DICATE HIS OW . Peter's one great argument was
that he had done everything under Divine direction (see Acts 11:5, Acts 11:9, Acts
11:12, Acts 11:15, Acts 11:16). He summed it all up in the strong, overwhelming
consideration, "What was I that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:17). 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 (Psalms 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 EXCULPATIO
OF ME A D FOR OUR OW SPIRITUAL E LARGEME T. 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.
The spirit of sect and the spirit of the gospel.
I. SECTARIA SUSPICIO S. 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 OPPOSITIO . 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. o 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 PRESE T LIGHTS UP THE PROPHETIC
DECLARATIO S 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.
either 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 ame with healing in his wings.—J.
EBC, "THE HARVEST OF THE GENTILES
THE eleventh chapter of the Acts is clearly divisible into two portions. There is first the
narrative of St. Peter’s reception at Jerusalem after the conversion of Cornelius, and
secondly the story of the origin of the Antiochene Church, the mother and metropolis of
Gentile Christendom. They are distinct the one from the other, and yet they are closely
connected together, for they both deal with the same great topic, the admission of the
Gentiles to full and free communion in the Church of God. Let us then search out the
line of thought which runs like a golden thread through this whole chapter, sure that in
doing so we shall find light shed upon some. modern questions from this divinely
written ecclesiastical history.
I. St. Peter tarried a certain time with Cornelius and the other new converts at Caesarea.
There was doubtless much to be taught and much to be set in order. Baptism was in the
early Church administered when the converts were yet immature in faith and knowledge.
The Church was viewed as a hospital, where the sick and feeble were to be admitted and
cured. It was not therefore demanded of candidates for admission that they should be
perfectly instructed in all the articles and mysteries of the Christian faith. There were
indeed some points in which they were not instructed at all till they had been "buried
with Christ through baptism into death." Then when they had taken their stand upon the
Christian platform, and were able to view the matter from the true vantage point, they
were admitted into fuller and deeper mysteries. Peter too must have had his work cut out
for him at Caesarea in striving to organise the Church. St. Philip may have here lent his
aid, and may have been constituted the resident head of the local Church. After the
baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch he worked his way up to Caesarea, preaching in all the
towns and villages of that populous district. There he seems to have fixed his residence,
as fifteen years or so later we find him permanently located in that city with his "four
daughters, virgins, which did prophesy." (Act_21:8-9) We may be sure that some such
Church organisation was immediately started at Caesarea. We have already traced the
work of organisation in Jerusalem. The apostles originally embraced in themselves all
ministerial offices, as in turn these offices were originally all summed up. in Jesus
Christ. The apostles had taken an important step in the establishment of the order of
deacons at Jerusalem, retaining in their own hands the supreme power to which appeal
and reports could be made. At Damascus it is evident that at the time of St. Paul’s
conversion there was an organised Church, Ananias being the head and chief of it, with
whom communications were officially held; while the notices about Joppa and the six
witnesses of his action whom St. Peter brought with him to Caesarea, indicate that an
assembly or Church, organised after the model of the Jerusalem Church, existed in that
town.
Having concluded his work in Caesarea St. Peter returned to Jerusalem, and there had to
render an account of his action and was placed upon his defence. "When Peter was come
up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou
wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." This simple circumstance
throws much light upon the character of the earliest Christianity. It was to a large extent
a Christian democracy. The apostles exercised the supreme executive power, but the

collective Christian assembly claimed the exercise of their private judgment, and, above
all, knew not anything of the fancied privilege of St. Peter, as Prince of the Apostles, to
lay down on his own authority the laws for the whole Christian Commonwealth. Here
was St. Peter exercising his ministry and apostolic power among the earliest Christians.
How were his ministry and authority received? Were they treated as if the personal
authority and decision of St. Peter settled every question without any further appeal?
This will be best seen if we tell a story well known in the annals of ecclesiastical history.
The fable of Papal Supremacy began to be asserted about the year 500, when a series of
forgeries were circulated concerning the bishops of Rome and their decisions during the
ages of persecution. One of these forgeries dealt with a pope named Marcellinus, who
presided over the See of Rome during the beginning of the great Diocletian persecution.
The story goes on to tell that Marcellinus fell into idolatry in order to save his life. A
council of three hundred bishops was summoned at Sinuessa, when the assembled
bishops are reported to have refused to pass sentence on the Pope, the successor of St.
Peter, saying that the Holy See may be judged by no man. They therefore called upon the
Pope to condemn himself, as he alone was a judge competent to exercise such a function.
This story, according to Dollinger, was forged about the year 500, and it clearly exhibits
the different view taken of the position of St. Peter in the Church of Jerusalem and of his
alleged successors in the Church of Rome five centuries later. In the latter case St.
Peter’s successor cannot be judged or condemned by any mortal. According to the Acts
of the Apostles the members of the stricter party in the Church of Jerusalem had no
hesitation in challenging the actions and teaching of St. Peter himself, and it was only
when he could prove the immediate and manifest approval of Heaven that they ceased
their opposition, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto
life."
We can in this incident see how the Church was slowly but surely developing itself under
the Divine guidance. The incident when the order of deacons was instituted was the
primary step. There was then first manifested that combination of authority and
freedom united with open discussion which, originating in the Christian Church, has
been the source of all modern society, of modern governments, and modern methods of
legislation. Now we see the same ideas applied to questions of doctrine and discipline,
till we come in a short time to the perfection of this method in the celebrated Council of
Jerusalem which framed the charter and traced out the main lines of development upon
which the Church of the Gentiles and true gospel freedom were established.
II. The centre of Christian interest now shifts its position and fixes itself in the city of
Antioch, where a further step in advance was taken. Our attention is first of all recalled
to the results of St. Stephen’s death. "They therefore that were scattered abroad upon the
tribulation that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and
Antioch, speaking the word to none save only to Jews. But there were some of them, men
of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks
also, preaching the Lord Jesus." This is clearly a case of preaching the gospel to the
Gentiles, and the question has been raised, Was the action of these men of Cyprus and
Cyrene quite independent of the action of St. Peter or an immediate result of the same?
Did the men of Cyprus and Cyrene preach the gospel to the Gentiles of Antioch of their
own motion, or did they wait till tidings of St. Peter’s action had reached them, and then,
yielding to the generous instincts which had been long beating in the hearts of these
Hellenistic Jews, did they proclaim at Antioch the glad tidings of salvation which the
Gentiles of that gay and brilliant but very wicked city so much needed? Our answer to
these queries is very short and plain. We think that the preaching of the Hellenists of
Cyprus to the Gentiles of Antioch must have been the result of St. Peter’s action at

Caesarea, else why did they wait till Antioch was reached to open their mouths to the
pagan world? Surely, if the sight of sin and wickedness and civilised depravity was
necessary to stir them up to efforts for the spiritual welfare of the Gentile world,
Phoenicia and Cyprus abounded with scenes quite sufficient to unseal their lips. But the
force of national prejudice and of religious exclusiveness was too strong till they came to
Antioch, where tidings must have reached them of the vision and action of St. Peter at
Caesarea.
It is easy to see why this information reached the missionaries at Antioch. Caesarea was
the Roman capital of Palestine, and was a seaport. Antioch was the Roman capital of the
province of Syria, an immense extent of territory, which included not merely the country
which we call Syria, but extended to the Euphates on the west and to the desert
intervening between Palestine and Egypt on the south. The prefect of the East resided at
Antioch, and he was one of the three or four greatest officials under the Roman emperor.
Palestine was, in fact, a part of the province of Syria, and its ruler or president was
dependent upon the governor of Syria. It is therefore in strictest accordance with the
facts of Roman history when St. Luke tells in his Gospel (Luk_2:2) concerning the
taxation of Augustus Caesar, "This was the first enrolment made when Quirinus was
governor of Syria." Antioch being then the seat of the central government of the eastern
division of the Roman Empire, and Caesarea being the headquarters of an important
lieutenant of the Syrian proconsul, it is no wonder there should have been very constant
intercourse between the two places. The great magazines of arms for the entire east were
located at Antioch, and there too the money was coined necessary to pay the troops and
to carry on commercial intercourse. It must have been very easy for an official like
Cornelius, or even for any simple private soldier or for an ordinary Jew or Christian of
Caesarea, to communicate with Antioch, and to send word concerning the proceedings
of St. Peter and the blessings vouchsafed by God to any devout person who might be
there seeking after light and truth. It is quite natural therefore that, while the Christians
dispersed into various lands by the persecution at Jerusalem restrained themselves to
the Jews alone throughout their previous labours, when the men of Cyprus and Cyrene
heard tidings at Antioch of St. Peter and his doings and revelations at Caesarea, they at
last allowed free scope to their longings which long ago had found place in their more
liberalised hearts, and testified to the Gentiles of Antioch concerning the gladsome story
of the gospel. Here again we behold another instance of the value of culture and travel
and enlarged intelligence. The Hellenists of Cyprus and Cyrene were the first to realise
and act out the principle which God had taught St. Peter. They saw that God’s mercies
were not restrained to the particular case of Cornelius. They realised that his was a
typical instance, and that his conversion was intended to carry with it and to decide the
possibility of Gentile salvation and the formation of a Gentile Church all over the world,
and they put the principle in operation at once in one of the places where it was most
needed: "When the men of Cyprus and Cyrene were come to Antioch, they spake unto
the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus." The method of the Divine development was
in the primitive ages very similar to that we often still behold. Some improvement is
required, some new principle has to be set in motion. If younger men begin the work, or
if souls ‘notorious for their freer thought or less prejudiced understandings, attempt to
introduce the novel principle, the vast mass of stolid conservative opposition and
attachment to the past is at once quickened into lively action. But then some Peter or
another, some man of known rectitude and worth, and yet of equally well-known narrow
views and devoted adherence to the past, takes some hesitating step in advance. He may
indeed strive to limit its application to the special case before him, and he may earnestly
deprecate any wider application of the principle on which he has acted. But it is all in

vain. He has served the Divine purposes. His narrowness and respectability and personal
weight have done their work, and have sanctioned the introduction of the principle
which then is applied upon a much wider scale by men whose minds have been
liberalised and trained to seize a great broad principle and put it into practical operation.
III. "When they came to Antioch, they spake the word to the Greeks also." And verily the
men of Cyprus and Cyrene chose a fitting spot to open the kingdom of heaven to the
Greek world and to found the mother Church of Gentile Christendom, for no city in the
whole world was more completely Satan’s seat, or more entirely devoted to those works
which St. John describes as the lusts of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the vain-
glory of life. Let us reflect a little on the history and state of Antioch, and we shall then
see the Divine motive in selecting it as the site of the first great Gentile Church, and we
shall see too the Divine guidance which led St. Luke in this typical ecclesiastical history
to select the Church of Antioch for such frequent notice, exceeding, as it does, all other
Churches save Jerusalem in the amount of attention bestowed upon it in the Acts of the
Apostles.
Antioch and Alexandria were towns dating from the same epoch. They came into
existence about the year 300 B.C., being the creation of Alexander the Great himself, or
of the generals who divided his empire between them. The city of Antioch was originally
built by Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the kingdom of Syria, but was subsequently
enlarged, so that in St. Paul’s time it was divided into four independent districts or
towns, each surrounded by its own walls, and all included within one vast wall some fifty
feet high, which surmounted mountain tops and was carried at vast expense across
valleys and ravines. Antioch was in the first century counted the third city in the world,
Rome being first, Alexandria second, and Antioch third. It bad marvellous natural
advantages. It was blessed with charming mountain scenery. The peaks rising up on all
sides could be seen from every part of the city, imparting thus to life in Antioch that
sense not merely of beauty and grandeur, but of the nearness of such beauty and
grandeur combined with solitude and freedom from the madding crowd which seem so
sweet to a man who passes his life amid the noise and hurry of a great city. What a
change in the conditions of life in London would be at once brought about could the
scenery surrounding Edinburgh or Lucerne be transferred to the world’s metropolis, and
the toiler in Fleet Street and the Strand be enabled to look amid his daily labours upon
cloud-piercing mountains or peaks clad in a robe of virgin white! Antioch was built upon
the southern bank of the river Orontes, along which it extended about five miles. The
main street of the city, otherwise called the Street of Herod after the celebrated Herod
the Great who built it, was four and a half miles long. This street was unrivalled among
the cities of the world, and was furnished with an arcade on both sides extending its
whole length, beneath which the inhabitants could walk and transact business at all
times, free from the heat and from the rain. The water supply of Antioch was its special
feature. The great orator Libanius, a native of Antioch, who lived three hundred years
later than St. Paul, while the city yet stood in all its grandeur and beauty, thus dwells on
this feature of Antioch in a panegyric composed under the Emperor Constantius: "That
wherein we beat all other is the water supply of our city; if in other respects any one may
compete with us, all give way so soon as we come to speak of the water, its abundance
and its excellence. In the public baths every stream has the proportions of a river, in the
private baths several have the like, and the rest not much less. One measures the
abundance of running water by the number of the dwelling-houses; for as many as are
the dwelling-houses, so many are also the running waters. Therefore we have no fighting
at the public wells as to who shall come first to draw-an evil under which so many
considerable towns suffer, when there is a violent crowding round the wells and outcry

over broken jars. With us the public fountains flow for ornament, since every one has
water within his doors. And this water is so clear that the pail appears empty, and so
pleasant that it invites us to drink." Such was the description of a pagan who saw
Antioch even as St. Paul saw it, and testified concerning the natural gifts with which God
had endowed it. But, alas! as with individuals, so is it with cities. God may lavish His
best blessings, and yet instead of bringing forth the fruits of righteousness His choicest
gifts of nature may be turned into fruitful seed plots of lust and sin. Sodom and
Gomorrha were planted in a vale that was well watered and fair and fruitful, even as the
Garden of the Lord; but the inhabitants thereof were wicked, and sinners before the.
Lord exceedingly; and so it was with Antioch. This city so blessed in situation and in
nature’s richest and most precious gifts was celebrated for its wicked preeminence amid
the awful corruption which then overspread the cities of the world. When the Roman
satirist Juvenal, writing about this period of which we treat, would fain account for the
excessive dissolution of morals which then prevailed at Rome, his explanation of it was
that the manners of Antioch had invaded Rome and corrupted its ancient purity:
"Jampridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes."
Amid the general wickedness of Antioch there was one element of life and hope and
purity. The Jews of Antioch formed a large society in that city governed by their own
laws and preserving themselves by their peculiar discipline free from the abounding
vices of Oriental paganism. It was at Antioch as it was at Alexandria and Damascus. The
Jews at Alexandria had their alabarch to whom they owed special allegiance and by
whom alone they were ruled; the Jews of Damascus had their ethnarch who exercised
peculiar jurisdiction over them; and so too had the Jews of Antioch a peculiar ruler of
their own, forming thus an imperium in imperio, running counter to our Western
notions which in many respects demand an iron uniformity very foreign to the Eastern
mind, and show themselves eminently deficient in that flexibility and diversity which
found an abundant play even among the arrangements of the Roman Empire. This
Jewish quarter of Antioch had for centuries been growing and extending itself, and its
chief synagogue had been glorified by the reception of some of the choicest temple spoils
which the kings of Syria had at first carried captive from Jerusalem and then in a fit of
repentance or of prudent policy had bestowed upon the Jewish colony in their capital
city.
Such was the city to which the men of Cyprus and Cyrene were now carrying the news of
the gospel, intending, doubtless, to tell merely their Jewish fellow-countrymen and
religionists of the Messiah whose love and power they had themselves experienced.
Here, however, they were met by the startling information from Caesarea. They were,
however, prepared for it. They were Hellenistic Jews like St. Stephen. They had listened
to his burning words, and had followed closely his epoch-making speeches whereby he
confounded the Jews and clearly indicated the opening of a new era. But then God’s
dispensations seemed to have terminated his teaching and put a fatal end to the hopes
which he had raised. Men then misread God’s dealings with His servants, and
interpreted His ways amiss. The death of Stephen seemed perhaps to some minds a
visible condemnation of his views, when in reality it was the direct channel by which God
would work out a wider propagation of them, as well as the conversion of the agent
destined to diffuse them most powerfully. Apparent defeat is not always permanent
disaster, whether in things temporal or things spiritual; nay, rather, the temporal check
may be the necessary condition of the final and glorious victory. So it was in this case, as
the men of Cyprus and Cyrene proved, when the news of St. Peter’s revelation and his
decisive action arrived and they realised in action the principles of Catholic Christianity
for which their loved teacher St. Stephen had died. And their brave action was soon

followed by blessed success, by a rich harvest of souls: "The hand of the Lord was with
them; and a great number that believed turned to the Lord." Thus were laid the
foundations of the headquarters, the mother Church of Gentile Christianity.
IV. Now we come to another step in the development. Tidings of the action taken at
Antioch came to Jerusalem. The news must have travelled much the same road as that
by which, as we have indicated, the story of St. Peter’s action was carried to Antioch. The
intercourse between Jerusalem and Antioch was frequent enough by land or by sea; and
no synagogue and no Jewish society was more liberal in its gifts towards the support of
the supreme council and hierarchy at Jerusalem than the Jewish colony and its
synagogues at Damascus. And the old custom of communication with Jerusalem
naturally led the Nazarenes of Antioch to send word of their proceedings up to the
apostles and supreme council who ruled their parent society in the same city. We see a
clear indication that the events at Antioch happened subsequently to those at Caesarea
in the manner in which the news was received at Jerusalem. There seems to have been
no strife, no discussion, no controversy. The question had been already raised and
decided after St. Peter’s return. So the apostles simply select a fitting messenger to go
forth with the authority of the apostles and to complete the work which, having been
initiated in baptism, merely now demanded that imposition of hands which, as we have
seen in the case of the Samaritan converts, was one of the special functions of the
apostles and chiefs of the Church at Jerusalem. And in choosing Barnabas the apostles
made a wise choice. They did not send one of the original Twelve, because not one of
them was fitted for the peculiar work now demanded. They were all narrow, provincial,
untravelled, devoid of that wide and generous training which God had given to
Barnabas. It may be too that they felt restrained from going beyond the bounds of
Canaan before the twelve years had elapsed of which ancient Christian tradition tells as
the limit of their stay in Jerusalem fixed by our Lord Himself. He was a Hellenistic Jew,
and he could sympathise with the wider feelings and ideas of the Hellenists. He was a
man of Cyprus, a friend and perhaps connection of many, both Jews and Gentiles,
among those whose new-born faith and hope were now in question. And above all he
was a man of kindly heart and genial temper and loving thought and blessed charity,
fitted to soothe jealousies and allay suspicions, and make the long alienated and
despised Gentiles feel at home in the Church and family of Jesus Christ. Barnabas was a
person peculiarly fitted to prove a mediator and uniting link in a society where divergent
elements found a place and asserted themselves. He was not the man to take a new step
or to have decided the question of the admission of the Gentiles if it had not been already
settled. He must have come therefore fortified by the authority of the apostles, and then,
knowing right well what they approved, he was just the man to carry out the details of an
arrangement requiring tact and skill and temper; though he was by no means suited to
decide a great question on its own merits or to initiate any great movement. In the
Church of God then, as in the Church of God still, there are a place and a work for the
strong man of keen logic and a Vigorous intellect and profound thought. And there are
too a place and a work for the man of loving heart and a charity which evermore delights
in compromise. "Barnabas, when he was come, and had seen the grace of God, was glad;
and he exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and faith; and much people was
added unto the Lord." Barnabas had another virtue too. He knew his own weakness. He
did not imagine like some men that he was specially strong where he was eminently
weak. He felt his want of the active vigorous mind of his friend of boyhood, the new
convert Saul. He knew where he was living in comparative obscurity and silence; so after
a little experience of the atmosphere of Antioch he departed to Tarsus to seek for him

and bring him back where a great work was awaiting his peculiar turn of mind. There is
an ancient historian of Antioch who has preserved for us many stories about that city in
these apostolic and even in much earlier ages. His name is John Malalas; he lived about
six hundred years after Christ and had access to many ancient documents and writers
that are no longer known to us. He tells us many things about the primitive Church of
Antioch. He has his own version of the quarrel between St. Paul and St. Peter which
happened in that city; and he fixes even the very spot where St. Paul first preached,
telling us that its name was Singon Street, which stood neat "the Pantheon." This may
seem to us a minuteness of detail too great to be believed. But then we must remember
that John Malalas expressly cites ancient chronologers and historians as his authorities,
and he himself lived while as yet Antioch retained all the ancient arrangements of streets
and divisions. And surely Saul, as he travelled from Tarsus responding at once to the call
of Barnabas, must have seen enough to stir his love to Christ and to souls into heartiest
exertion. He came doubtless by sea and landed at Seleucia, the port of Antioch, some
sixteen miles distant from the city. As he travelled up to Antioch he would get distant
glimpses of the groves of Daphne, a park ten miles in circumference, dedicated indeed to
the poetic worship of Apollo, but dedicated also to the vilest purposes of wickedness
intimately associated with that poetic worship. Poetry, whether ancient or modern, can
be very blessed, ennobling and elevating man’s whole nature. But the same poetry, as in
ancient paganism and in some modern writers, can become a festering plague-spot, the
abounding source to its votaries of moral corruption and spiritual death.
Daphne and its associations would rouse the whole soul, the healthy moral nature of
Saul of Tarsus, inherited originally from his ancient Jewish training, and now quickened
and deepened by the spiritual revelations made to him in Christ Jesus. It is no wonder
then that here we read of St. Paul’s first long and continuous period of ministerial work:
"It came to pass that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the Church,
and taught much people." The results of the new force which Barnabas introduced into
the spiritual life of Antioch soon became manifested. "The disciples were first called
Christians at Antioch." Saul of Tarsus possessed what Barnabas did not possess. He
possessed a powerful, a logical, and a creative intellect. He realised from the beginning
what his own principles meant and to what they were leading him. He taught not
Judaism or the Law with an addition merely about Jesus of Nazareth. He troubled not
himself about circumcision or the old covenant, but he taught from the very beginning
Christ Jesus, Christ in His Divine and human nature, Christ in His various offices, Jesus
Christ as the one hope for mankind. This was now at Antioch, as before at Damascus, the
staple topic of St. Paul’s preaching, and therefore the Antiochenes, with their ready wit
and proverbial power of giving nicknames, at once designated the new sect not
Nazarenes or Galileans as the Jews of Jerusalem called them, but Christians or
adherents of Christ. Here, however, I prefer to avail myself of the exposition which one
of the great spiritual teachers of the last generation gave us of this expression. The well-
known and learned Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Trench, in his "Study of Words" (21st Ed.:
Lond. 1890), p. 189, thus draws out the lesson connected with this word and the time of
its appearance: "‘The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.’ That we have here
a notice which we would not willingly have missed all will acknowledge, even as nothing
can be otherwise than curious which relates to the infancy of the Church. But there is
here much more than a curious notice. Question it a little closer, and how much it will be
found to contain, how much which it is waiting to yield up! What light it throws on the
whole story of the Apostolic Church to know where and when this name of Christians
was first imposed on the faithful; for imposed by adversaries it certainly was, not devised
by themselves, however afterwards they may have learned to glory in it as the name of

highest dignity and honour. They did not call themselves, but, as is expressly recorded,
they ‘were called’ Christians first at Antioch; in agreement with which statement the
name occurs nowhere in Scripture, except on the lips of those alien from or opposed to
the faith. (Act_26:28, 1Pe_4:16) And as it was a name imposed by adversaries, so among
these adversaries it was plainly heathens, and not Jews, who were its authors; for Jews
would never have called the followers of Jesus of Nazareth ‘Christians,’ or those of
Christ, the very point of their opposition to Him being, that He was not the Christ, but a
false pretender to the name. Starting then from this point that ‘Christians’ was a title
given to the disciples by the heathen, what may we deduce from it further? At Antioch
they first obtained this name-at the city, that is, which was the headquarters of the
Church’s mission to the heathen, in the same sense as Jerusalem had been the
headquarters of the mission to the seed of Abraham. It was there and among the faithful
there that a conviction of the world-wide destination of the gospel arose; there it was
first plainly seen as intended for all kindreds of the earth. Hitherto the faithful in Christ
had been called by their adversaries, and indeed were often still called ‘Galileans’ or
‘Nazarenes’-both names which indicated the Jewish cradle wherein the Church had been
nursed, and that the world saw in the new society no more than a Jewish sect. But it was
plain that the Church had now, even in the world’s eyes, chipped its Jewish shell. The
name Christians or those of Christ, while it told that Christ and the confession of Him
were felt even by the heathen to be the sum and centre of this new faith, showed also
that they comprehended now, not all which the Church would be, but something of this;
saw this much, namely, that it was no mere sect and variety of Judaism, but a Society
with a mission and a destiny of its own. Now will the thoughtful reader fail to observe
that the coming up of this name is by closest juxtaposition connected in the sacred
narrative, and still more closely in the Greek than in the English, with the arrival at
Antioch, and with the preaching there, of that Apostle who was God’s appointed
instrument for bringing the Church to a full sense that the message which it had was not
for some men only, but for all. As so often happens with the rise of new names, the rise
of this one marked a new epoch in the Church’s life, and that it was entering upon a new
stage of development." This is a long extract, but it sets forth in dignified and aptly
chosen words, such as Archbishop Trench always used, the important lessons which the
thoughtful student of the Acts may gather from the time and place where the term
"Christians" first sprang into existence.
Finally, we notice in connection with Antioch that the foundation of the great Gentile
Church was marked by the same universal impulse which we trace wherever Christ was
effectually preached. The faith of the Crucified evermore produced love to the brethren.
Agabus, a prophet whom we shall again meet many years after in the course of St. Paul’s
life, and who then predicted his approaching arrest and captivity at Jerusalem, made his
earliest recorded appearance at Antioch, where he announced an impending famine.
Agabus exercised the office of a prophet, which implied under the New Dispensation
rather the office of preaching than of prediction. Prediction, indeed, whether under the
Old or the New Dispensation, formed but a small portion of the prophetical office. The
work of the prophet was pre-eminently that of telling forth God’s will and enforcing it
upon a careless generation. Occasionally indeed, as in the case of Agabus, that telling
forth involved prediction or announcement of God’s chastisements and visitations; but
far oftener the prophet’s work was finished when he enforced the great principles of
truth and righteousness as the Christian preacher does still. Agabus seems to have been
specially gifted in the direction of prediction. He announced a famine as impending over
the whole world, which came to pass in the age of Claudius, offering to the Gentile
Church of Antioch an opportunity, of which they gladly availed themselves, to repay

somewhat of the spiritual obligation which the Gentiles owed to the Jews according to
St. Paul’s own rule: "If the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things,
they owe it to them also to minister unto them in carnal things." We can trace here the
force and power of ancient Jewish customs. We can see how the mould and form and
external shape of the Church was. gained from the Jew. The Jewish colony of Antioch
had been of old famous for the liberality of its gifts to the mother community at
Jerusalem. The predominant element in the Church of Antioch was now Gentile, but still
the ancient customs prevailed. The Gentile Christian community acted towards the
Jerusalem Church as the Jewish community had been used to treat their countrymen:
"The disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the
brethren that dwelt in Judaea: which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand
of Barnabas and Saul."
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "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 God’s 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 God’s 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 men’s 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 devil’s 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 master’s 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 centurion’s 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 Peter’s 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 Master’s 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
Peter’s 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
Peter’s 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 God’s 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
Christ’s 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 Peter’s 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 Christ’s 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 Philip’s 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. Peter’s 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 God’s grace;
(2) in its issue as “unto life.” And with this doctrine ought “the fallow ground” of
men’s hearts to be broken. It is God’s command; it is God’s gift; it is God’s
encouragement: “Turn ye; why will ye die?” (D. Fraser, D. D.)

MACLARE 1-8, "PETER'S APOLOGIA
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.
2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the
circumcised believers criticized him

Acts 11 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Acts 11 commentary

Similar to Acts 11 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Acts 11 commentary