Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Acts 11:1 - 11:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
C.—The Objections Of Prejudiced Judæo-Christians To The Fellowship With Gentiles, Which Had Been Commenced, Are Successfully Answered By Peter, Who Appeals To The Obvious Interposition Of The Lord In The Whole Transaction; Hence, Those Who Had Objected, Are Not Only Satisfied, But Also Offer Thanks To God For The Conversion Of The Gentiles.
Act_11:3. Thou wentest … didst eat with them.—All the believers, however, did not receive such impressions, or else doubts may have gradually arisen in the minds of many, which altered their original favorable view of the case. This circumstance manifested itself when Peter returned to Jerusalem; those who were ἐê ðåñéôïìῆò , Act_11:2, censured him.—Who are these persons? The expression resembles the one which occurs in Act_10:45 : ïἱ ἐê ðåñéôïìῆò ðéóôïß , except that the latter is less likely to attract attention, since Peter and his Judæo-Christian attendants from Joppa are there surrounded by heathens, i.e., by uncircumcised men. But here in Jerusalem, on the contrary, there was certainly at that time, not one man among all the Christians, who was not an Israelite, and, consequently, circumcised. If, therefore, in the midst of the Judæo-Christian congregation, ïἱ ἐê ðåñéôïìῆò are specially brought forward, this term cannot be intended to state the objective, religious and national fact that they were circumcised Jews, but can refer only to subjective [personal] views and sentiments. Those only of the Judæo-Christians are, accordingly, described by it, who assigned a peculiar value to circumcision, and, without doubt, to the observance of the Mosaic law in general. With this explanation the statement in the present verse agrees. These persons äéåêñßíïíôï ðñὸò áὐôüí , that is, they disputed, contended with Peter ( äéáêñßíïìáé , secernor, pugna decerno, dimico); they declared it to be a ground of reproach to him, that he had entered the house of uncircumcised men, and eaten at the same table with them. Here ἀêñïâõóôßá and ðåñéôïìÞ are, accordingly, antithetical terms. These strict men of the circumcision did not reproach Peter for having preached the Gospel to heathens and baptized them; such a course, indeed, they could not easily pronounce to be wrong, especially in view of the command of Jesus to preach the Gospel to all nations. But they could not reconcile it with their lofty conceptions of a strictly legal course of action, and of the dignity of an Israelite, that Peter should have commenced such a familiar intercourse, and such a close fellowship with pagans, entered a pagan house, and sat as a guest at the table of an uncircumcised man. If these opponents of Peter reflected further, they must have at last arrived at the conclusion that those pagans who hear the word of Christ and believe it, should necessarily be first circumcised and fully incorporated with the people of Israel, before a Christian, that is, a Judæo-Christian, could hold intercourse with them without restraint, and maintain a fraternal fellowship with them. And this was undoubtedly the Judaizing principle, in the proper sense of the term.
Act_11:4-11. But Peter … from the beginning [But Peter began.].—The word ἀñîÜìåíïò is not intended merely to describe the general fact that Peter began to speak, but also implies that his narrative took a wide range, and embraced the earliest circumstances connected with the event. The term êáèåîῆò denotes that the apostle furnished a detailed and regular statement of all the facts, in the order in which they successively occurred. It is precisely the intimate manner in which the several incidents in the narrative are here interwoven with each other, that produces conviction, and silences every doubt. The true purport and meaning of the revelation which God granted to Peter in the vision (Act_11:5-10), are unfolded by the arrival of the messengers from Cesarea (Act_11:11), which coincided in time with the vision, as well as by the simultaneous command of the Spirit (Act_11:12) that he should accompany them. And when the apostle enters the house of Cornelius, he learns that the latter had also received a divine command, and had been directed to send to Joppa, in order to hear the saving word from Peter’s own mouth. As soon, moreover, as the Gospel is proclaimed to Cornelius and his friends, (Act_11:15), the outpouring of the Holy Ghost occurs, and thus the several circumstances are all intimately connected with one another—each particular illustrates, explains, and confirms the rest, and the whole not only produces an harmonious impression on the mind, but also testifies incontrovertibly; “It is the will of God!” And, as the event exercised such great influence on the enlargement and regular development of the church of Christ, Luke here repeats, in the words of the apostle, the principal features of the narrative which he had himself given in the previous chapter.
Act_11:12-14. And the Spirit bade me go, etc.—The word ïῦ ̓ ôïé which is appended to ïἱ ἓî ἀäåëöïß , Act_11:12, shows that the Christians of Joppa, who had accompanied Peter to Cesarea, subsequently went with him to Jerusalem; this could have the more easily occurred, if, as it is probable, Peter at once proceeded to that city, without returning to Joppa. It is, besides, quite possible that Peter anticipated that some individuals in Jerusalem would remonstrate against the course of action which he had pursued, and hence desired the presence of these brethren as witnesses of the divine guidance in the whole transaction.
Act_11:15. And as I began.—The language: ἐí ôῷ ἄñîáóäáß ìå ëáëåῖí , implies that Peter had not yet concluded, but intended to continue his discourse, when he was interrupted by the unexpected occurrence to which he here refers. [ʼ Áîá . is not pleonastic, as some have supposed, but is equivalent to: ‘I had scarcely spoken a few words, when, etc.’ Winer: Gr. N. T. § 65. 7. d.—Tr.]. When he mentions here the communication of the Spirit, he purposely lays a stress specially on its identity with the original communication of the Spirit to the Christians: ὥóðåñ êáὶ ἐö ʼ ἡìᾶò ἐí ἀñ÷ῇ , namely, in the beginning of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost [“on the day of Pentecost.” (Meyer).—Tr.].—When he afterwards says, Act_11:17 : ôὴí ἵóçí äùñåὰí — ὡò êáὶ ἡìῖí ðéóôåýóáóéí , etc., the participle ðéóô . refers to ἡìῖí , which stands nearest to it, and neither to the more remote áὐôïῖò (Kuinoel), nor to both pronouns at the same time. For, as Bengel has ingeniously observed, this clause is intended to set forth that faith in Jesus was the condition on which alone the Christians had, at the beginning, received the gift of the Holy Ghost. The sense is: ‘Not because we were Israelites, nor because we had obtained, circumcision, but because we believed in Jesus as the Lord and Messiah, God has granted to us the gift of the Spirit, and indeed as a äùñåÜ , as a free gift of grace, to which we had no rightful claim, and which God did not owe to us.’
Act_11:16. Then remembered I … he said.—When Peter refers to the words of Jesus, which are recorded both in Luk_3:16 [Luk_24:49], and in Act_1:5, the sense is not merely, that Peter had lived to witness the extension to pagans also of the gift which had been promised more immediately to the apostles (Meyer); the apostle rather speaks emphatically of the relation existing between baptism with water and baptism with the Spirit in the following sense: ‘When the Lord promised us His baptism, it was the baptism with the Spirit;’ now if He has granted to pagans the same baptism with the Holy Ghost, which we ourselves had previously received, baptism with water could not, in that case, be denied to them, for such a denial would have, very erroneously, represented the latter as being more important and more holy than the baptism with the Spirit.
Act_11:17-18. a. As God gave them, etc. [the like gift … us, who believed; see above, on Act_11:15.—Tr.].—The question in the apodosis (Act_11:17): ἐãὼ äὲ ôßò ἤìçí äõíáôüò êùëῦóáé ôὸõ èåüí , contains an inference corresponding to the foregoing [ åἰ ïῦ ̓ í etc. is the protasis.—Tr.]. The particle äÝ [see note 8 above, appended to the text.—Tr.] in the conditional clause, gives prominence to a certain antithesis, which is a double one in the present case, in which two interrogative clauses are combined. [Winer: Gr. N. T. § 66. 5. (3).—Tr.]. Peter asks: ‘Who, on the other hand, was I?’ and, ‘Was I, then, able to hinder God?’ The former question contrasts God with man, the latter, God’s almighty will and action with man’s feeble powers. In each respect it was impossible to hinder God, that is, when he decreed to save these pagans, and to incorporate them with the kingdom of Christ, as well as those who were Jews by birth. [“ êùë . ô . è . i.e., to hinder God, by hindering the baptism (Act_10:47), which his will contemplated, when he communicated the Spirit.” (de Wette).—Tr.]
b. It hence appears that Peter did not restrict himself to the special objection which was made to his course in accepting the hospitality of pagans, and sitting at the table with them; he also took, as the basis of his vindication of himself, the gracious purpose of God respecting the Gentiles, in so far as that purpose was unmistakably revealed in the acts of God. If he could exhibit the subject distinctly and convincingly, from this point of view, his defence of himself for entering into social relations with pagans, would be perfectly successful. And such was really the case, according to Act_11:18. For, those who had entertained scruples, were not only satisfied ( ἡóý÷áóáí ), after hearing this address, and tacitly withdrew all that they had said in reproach of Peter, but also enthusiastically proclaimed the praises of God ( ἐäüîáæïí etc.), who had granted so great a gift as a change of mind to heathens also, with a view to life or to salvation. The change of tense in ἡóý÷áóáí and ἐäüîáæïí [see note 9 above, appended to the text.—Tr.], informs us that Peter’s opponents were at once satisfied, but that the thanks and praises which they gave to God, were enduring.
2. The deportment of the apostle Peter, when he heard these reproaches, was truly evangelical, and in accordance with the mind of Jesus, and was not hierarchical in its character. Far from retiring behind the protection of his apostolical authority and power, or leaning for support on any alleged primacy—far from claiming to be infallible in deciding a question of principle, or declining to furnish explanations and to justify himself, he allowed his opponents to express themselves unreservedly and fully. His defence, which was made with the utmost calmness and gentleness, was so constructed that the facts themselves spoke aloud, insomuch that even his opponents voluntarily confessed that they were vanquished. It was only in this way that the discussion could really result in majorem Dei gloriam ( ἐäüîáæïí ôὸí èåüí , Act_11:18); and it produced this result far more successfully than if the principle had been tenaciously held, that the apostle was a priori necessarily right, or, that, in view of the contracted judgment of the laity, he was by no means bound to explain his conduct.
Act_11:2-3. But when Peter was come up … they … contended with him, etc.—How often wisdom still has to justify herself on account both of her children, and of her manner of gathering them, in answer to many a censure and many an objection which men pronounce! Who can perform any work so skilfully, as to be liable to no objection? But it is often well that such opposition counterbalances the joy with which success might inspire us, as we thus the more surely remain in that humble and calm frame of mind, which Peter here exhibits. (Rieger).—The church in Jerusalem did not recognize Peter as a pope, since she here calls him to account. (Starke).—The discussion of religious subjects, it is true, can seldom take place, without being, to a certain extent, a source of offence; still, it is often attended with the advantage that the truth is thus more fully brought to light, (id.).—We learn from this contention, 1. That even among God’s saints no one has been free from blemishes and folly; and although we cannot compare the large rents in the walls of our modern Zion with the inconsiderable crevices that may be discovered in the primitive church, nevertheless, the church has at all times been, and always will continue to be, a lazar-house, in which the sick and the infirm are restored by Jesus, the faithful Physician. Let no one, then, despond, who is required to fulfil the duties of his office among the dead and the living, the healthy and the sick. 2. But, on the other hand, we ought not to ascribe the faults of the saints to a malicious spirit. There are some, who, when they speak of the devout, strain at gnats, while, at other times, they can even swallow camels. There are others who look at the failings of the apostles through a magnifying glass, and charge them with having misunderstood the mind of their Master, with having caused his plan to fail, etc., because they cannot establish their own system of faith, except on the ruins of the apostolic doctrine. There are even individuals who attempt to palliate their own transgressions, by appealing to the faults and sins of believers in the primitive church. It is necessary to explain to all such persons the distinction between faults and weaknesses, on the one hand, and unfaithfulness and unholiness of feeling, on the other—to show them that the faults of believers are not presented as models, but recorded as warnings—and to exhort them to repent, and do the first works [Rev_2:5]. Pastors, especially, are bound to guard against indulging a contentious spirit, and to remember the word of Paul: “If any man seem to be contentious, [let him know that (Germ. version)] we have no such custom.” [1Co_11:16]. 3. When we have truly known and experienced the universal love of God, we can form a more correct judgment respecting many occurrences which are connected with the kingdom of God, although they may take place beyond the pale of our own creed, and we will be preserved from yielding to an undue zeal against other religions. It will give us pleasure when, here or there, another soul is won, even if we might object in part to the manner in which that soul was approached. 4. They were of the circumcision, or believers among the Jews, who took offence at the baptism of the Gentiles [see Exeg. note on Act_11:3.—Tr.]. Their attachment to the traditions of the fathers, and their erroneous views of certain passages of the Scriptures, led them to regard the observance of the Mosaic law as necessary. A remnant of the Jewish leaven still fermented in them, and, through them, in the primitive church. We here find a striking illustration of the force of old and deep-rooted prejudices, even in the case of converted men. The tendency to rely on works, as if they were meritorious, is not entirely extirpated, even when its gross forms cease to appear after conversion. (Ap. Past.).—The infirmities of believers: they are to be regarded, I. Not as facts which bear witness against the faith, but as evidences of human imperfection, over which faith has not yet fully prevailed; II. Not as palliations of our own sins, but as facts which warn him who stands, to take heed lest he fall.—The divisions in the primitive Church—exhibited to Christendom, for the purpose of, I. Humbling men, by exposing the power of the enemy, who never fails to sow tares among the wheat; II. Comforting men, by demonstrating that nothing new or strange occurs in the experience of the church, when rents and divisions take place in our day; III. Instructing men, by showing how such divisions may be healed, through the power of evangelical truth and love.
Act_11:4-17. [See above, Hom. etc. on Act_10:9-23.]. Observe here a beautiful illustration of humility, as furnished by a religious teacher. Peter gives an account of his conduct with modesty, in full accordance with his own exhortation (1Pe_3:15-16), in a very different manner from the bishops of Rome, who will not consent to be judged by any one. Psa_12:4. (Starke).—Here he was truly Peter; like a rock that cannot be moved, he retained all his firmness when the brethren assailed him, and neither permitted himself to doubt the truth of his convictions, nor lost his calmness and gentleness. How would we have sustained ourselves in such a trial—we, who are often so sensitive and impatient when sincere friends kindly admonish us, or, after we have ascertained the will of God, begin to waver, when we hear the opinions of men? (From Ap. Past.).—The testimony of the six brethren of Joppa, who had accompanied Peter, was now of great advantage to him. Hence, it is well, if we desire to obviate all doubts, to act with openness, and to secure the testimony of men of acknowledged veracity. (Rieger).—The defence of the apostle is, in its whole character, calm, natural and convincing. He relates all the circumstances of the case with precision, and specially dwells on those which justified his conduct, e. g., his own prejudice at the beginning, the heavenly vision, etc. This mode of demonstrating his innocence, by a plain statement of the facts themselves, corresponds precisely to the spirit of Christianity, which demands that truth and uprightness should constitute the basis of all our actions. (From Ap. Past.).—The apostle Peter’s vindication, in the presence of the Christians, of his conduct in baptizing heathens: I. That he vindicates himself; II. The manner in which he does it. (Schleiermacher).
Act_11:18. When they heard these things, they held their peace.—The strong should bear with the infirmities of the weak, but the latter should also be willing to receive the admonitions of the former. (Starke).—To err is human, but to adhere resolutely to an error of which we are convinced is devilish. How much injury has been inflicted on the church of God by that obstinacy which continues to defend erroneous views, because they have been once adopted! (Ap. Past.)—The objections of human short-sightedness against the wonderful ways of divine wisdom: they must end, I. In self-abasement and silence, II. In joyful praise of God.
ON THE WHOLE SECTION.—Peter’s defence of his conduct before the brethren, a model of a fraternal vindication: I. By its evangelical gentleness and humility; II. By its apostolical firmness and candor.
The best witnesses of a servant of God, when he is assailed and misjudged: I. The commission of God, of which he is conscious; II. The eyes of men, in whose presence he labored; III. The peace of mind with which he can justify himself; IV. The fruits of his labors, to which he may point.
Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life: let us here observe, I. The greatness of divine mercy; II. The blessings which follow man’s repentance.
The reception of the first heathen family into the Christian brotherhood: I. A glorious triumph of divine wisdom and mercy; II. A noble proof of Christian humility and charity; III. A. powerful impulse to that love which seeks the salvation of men.
Footnotes:
Act_11:2. ὅôå äÝ is better sustained by manuscripts [A. B. E. Cod. Sin., followed by Lach. Tisch. and Alt.], and ancient versions [Vulg. etc.] than êáὶ ὅôå [of text. rec. with G. H.—Tr.]
Act_11:7. [ êáὶ omitted before öùíῆò in text. rec. with G. H., is found in A. B. E. Cod. Sin., Vulg. etc. and adopted by Lach., Tisch., and Alf.; D. reads êáὶ ἥêïõóá .—Tr.]
Act_11:8. ðᾶí before êïéíüí [of text. rec.] is very feebly supported [by G. H.]; it was doubtless introduced into some MSS. from Act_10:14. [Omitted in A. B. D. E, Cod. Sin. Vulg. etc. and by later editors.—Tr.]
Act_11:9. ìïé [of text. rec.] before öùíÞ is wanting in good authorities [A. B. Cod. Sin. vulg. etc., but is found in E. G. H.; ðñὸò ìÝ in D.]; it was probably interpolated in order to correspond to Act_11:7 [or to Act_10:15, (Alf.); omitted by Lach. Tisch. and Alf.—Tr.]
Act_11:12. The words ìçäὲí äéáêñéíüìåíïí [of text. rec. with E. G. H. Vulg. etc.], are cancelled by Tischendorf as spurious, because they are wanting even in that MS. which has, in this section, inserted the largest number of glosses in the text, viz. Cantabrig. (D); other manuscripts read äéáêñßíïíôá or óéáêñßíáíôá [the latter is the reading of A. B., and is adopted by Lach., and favored by de Wette], or äéáêñéíüìåíïò [minuscules]. Cod. Sin. and one uncial MS. of the second rank, i. e. Cod. Basileensis (E) read äéáêñßíïíôá [but a later hand altered the reading of Cod. Sin. to— íáíôá .—Tr.]. The great diversity in the readings makes it probable that both words were a later addition derived from Act_10:20. [The words are omitted in D. Syr. etc. and by Alf.—Tr.]
Act_11:13. ἅíäñïò [of text. rec. with E. G. H.] after Ἰüððçí , is wanting in important manuscripts [A. B. D. Cod. Sin.], and in most of the ancient versions [Syr. Vulg.]; it was interpolated here from Act_10:5. [Omitted by recent editors.—For ôå after ἀðÞã . of text. rec. with E. G. H., and retained by Alf., äὲ is substituted from A. B. D. (also Cod. Sin.) by Lach. Tisch. and Bornem. with whom Meyer concurs.—Tr.]
Act_11:16. [Some editors (Griesb.; Knapp, Lach.) who are now sustained by Cod. Sin., insert ôïῦ before êõñßïõ , from A. D. E.—Tisch. and Alf., with text. rec., in accordance with G. H., fathers, etc. omit the word; comp. 1Pe_1:25, and see Winer: Gram. N. T. § 19 1, under êýñéïò .—Tr.]
Act_11:17. äÝ [of text. rec.] after ἐãþ is indeed wanting in A. B. D [and Cod. Sin.], and some minuscules, as well as in several versions [Syr. Vulg. and some fathers]; hence Lachmann has cancelled it. But it is attested by E. G. H., as well as some versions, and would scarcely have been inserted, if it had been originally omitted, as it seemed to be superfluous, [“ äå was simply dropped, because it was not understood; here it occurs, as it often does in the apodosis after ἐðåß (in the classics), in order to give prominence to the antithesis ( åἰ ïὖã ὁ èåïò – ἐãὼ äὲ ). Herm. Viger. p. 783, annot. 401. Lipsiæ. 1834.” (de Wette).—Retained by Alf. and Meyer.—Tr.]
Act_11:18. ἐäüîáæïí [text. rec. with A. E., and retained by Tischend. and Alf.] is far better supported than åäüîáóáí , which Lachmann has preferred [and which is found in B. and Cod. Sin.], but which was adopted only for the sake of uniformity [to correspond to the aor. ἡóý÷áóáí ; de Wette, who refers to Luk_8:23 prefers the imperfect tense, as that of continued action; see above, EXEG. on Act_8:15-17 ult.—́ Áñáãå , of text. rec. and E. G. H. is preferred by Alf. to ἄñá of A. B. D. and Cod. Sin.; the latter form is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.—Tr.]