Acts 10

CHAPTER X

CORNELIUS: THE RECEPTION OF GENTILE CHRISTIANS

Luke devotes so much space to the story of Cornelius because it marks a new departure in the work of the apostles. What had been indicated by the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch is fully established by the baptism of Cornelius and of his household. The eunuch went his way, but these Gentiles in Caesarea remained and thus formed the vanguard of the great army of Gentiles that soon entered the church. What Peter did in the case of Cornelius was a preparation for the entire work of Paul, who was waiting in Tarsus during these years.

Acts 10:1

1 Now a man in Caesarea, by name Cornelius, a centurion from the cohort called the Italian, pious and fearing God with all his house, doing many almadeeds for the people, begging of God always, saw in a vision plainly about at the ninth hour an angel of God come in to him and say to him, Cornelius!

Joppa was a very ancient city, but Cæsarea was most recent, having been built by Herod the Great in ten years and named in honor of the Roman Cæsar. After Herod’s time it became the resident city of the Roman governors.

Cornelius is described at length. He was a centurion in the Roman army, an officer who commanded a century or 100 men. He belonged to the Italian cohort which was stationed in Cæsarea at this time; thirty-two such Italian cohorts were stationed in the different provinces of the empire. They were made up of Italian volunteers and were considered the most loyal Roman troops. A legion consisted of ten cohorts plus auxiliary troops. Each cohort had six centuries and the same number of centurions. No longer is Luke’s statement challenged, that there was a cohort in Cæsarea and this province of the empire at the time of which Luke speaks.

It must have been late in the year 37 or early in 38 when Saul left Jerusalem and went to Tarsus via Cæsarea. Peter must have gone to Lydda, Joppa, and then Cæsarea not long after Saul had departed, namely in the summer of 38. Herod Agrippa I, a prisoner in Rome under Tiberius until the latter’s death on March 16, 37, was appointed king over his uncle Philip’s tetrarchy (Luke 3:1) by the new emperor Caligula but did not arrive in Palestine until late in the summer of 38. Perhaps already in April, 37, Marullus was appointed procurator of Judea, and he must have had this Italian cohort in Cæsarea. Not until early in 41 did Emperor Claudius make Agrippa I king over all Palestine, which explains how he could execute James and imprison Peter in Jerusalem. Marullus ruled as procurator. Agrippa I suffered a miserable death after the Passover of 44, after ruling all Palestine for only a little over three years.

Acts 10:2

2 When Luke writes: “pious and fearing God with all his house,” the adjective marks the godly character of the man, the participle, however, brings out the fact that he and his whole family were proselytes of the gate. On the two kinds of proselytes see 2:10 and 8:27. The important point that is vital for all that follows even as far as 15:7–11, is that Cornelius and his household were still Gentiles and were regarded as such by all Jews, were considered as standing only at the gate of the pale of the Jewish Church and were debarred from passing beyond the court of the Gentiles in the Temple. None such had as yet come into the Christian Church save the eunuch; those called “proselytes” in 2:10 were such in the full sense of the word and hence were regarded as Jews.

The great question which the Lord compelled Peter and the church to face in the person of Cornelius was whether the way into the Christian Church was to be only through Judaism and the synagogue or also direct from Gentilism and paganism by faith and baptism alone. It was exceedingly difficult for many Christians who had come into the church from Judaism to find and to accept the true and the God-pleasing answer to this question. The Lord made that answer exceedingly plain and forceful through Cornelius. That answer had to be clear in the minds of all before the gospel could reach out into the vast Gentile world.

From the beginning Cornelius appears “with his whole house” around him, his family and his slaves, and soon we note even his friends (v. 24). This was more than just family religion; this man’s faith reached out all around him. While he was a proselyte of the gate, we are not at all sure that as much can be said regarding all the rest whom Peter met in his house. Cornelius cultivated the two outstanding virtues of the Jewish religion: he gave abundant alms and he was diligent in prayer. The beneficiaries of his charity were “the people,” λαός so often signifying the Jewish people. He had found so much through them that he made generous and grateful return. Luke uses δεόμενος, which takes the genitive as a designation for praying, the verb which means “to beg of God”; in v. 4 we have the regular word for “prayers.”

Acts 10:3

3 He was thus engaged when there came an answer to his prayers that he had not expected. “At about the ninth hour” refers to the hour of the evening sacrifice in the Temple at Jerusalem, three o’clock in the afternoon, the hour that was used for prayer also by devout Jews who lived far from the Temple. Luke’s ὡσεὶπερί is due to the non-existence of clocks and thus to the inability to be entirely exact; moreover, according to the season and the amount of daylight, the hours were longer or shorter. Suddenly Cornelius saw an angel of God; the two aorist participles are punctiliar, not “coming in” and “saying,” but that he “came” and “said.” We meet these visions frequently; note that of Peter in v. 10, etc. Instead of being confined to ordinary perceptions, the mind and the senses are able to see the supernatural that the Lord intends to reveal. Cornelius was wide awake, entirely master of his mind and his senses, but now he saw the coming of the angel with his eyes and heard the words of the angel with his ears and recognized the angel as the person that he was. The direct address, “Cornelius,” implied that this heavenly messenger had a communication for him.

These visions are never mere subjective autosuggestions or the mind’s own productions. The angel was actually present, was as real as though a man stood before Cornelius. He spoke audibly so that Cornelius heard his voice and his words. The veil which confines us to this natural world was withdrawn; Cornelius was enabled to see and to hear this angel from the heavenly world. Each vision is confined to definite limits and does not extend beyond these; for it is a revelation of the facts and truths desired by the Lord and hence does not go beyond these. Rationalism will always either deny them outright or will seek natural or pathological explanations for them. Sudduceeism still continues.

Acts 10:4

4 And he, gazing earnestly on him and become trembling, said, What is it, Lord? And he said to him: Thy prayers and thy alms went up for a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa and summon for thyself a Simon who is surnamed Peter; he is lodging with a Simon, a tanner, who has a house beside the sea.

Cornelius could not do otherwise than to rivet his eyes upon this heavenly being and could not do otherwise than to tremble at his sight. This is quite regularly the effect produced when sinful men come into visible contact with the other world. As in v. 3, so here, too, the participles are historical aorists which intend not to describe but only to register the facts: he gazed, he became trembling. Cornelius properly addresses the angel as “lord.” In the Gospels we constantly have κύριος in this sense when a person is addressed as a superior. Eventually the word came to be used as a designation for Jesus as the divine Lord, the Second Person of the deity. We have the two uses in English today: “lord” (some man) and “Lord” (Jesus as God).

When the angel tells Cornelius that his prayers and his alms have come up “for a memorial” before God, the phrase conveys the truth that God intends to remember these prayers and these alms, to take account of them in his grace towards Cornelius. It should not be necessary to say that no work-righteousness is implied but something vastly greater than any claims of human merit. The prayers and the alms revealed the condition of the heart of Cornelius. They were, indeed, good works but are here regarded like the good works of the righteous at the time of the final judgment when Jesus will use them as the evidence of faith and the absence of such good works as the evidence for the absence of saving faith (Matt. 25:34–46). God was thus judging Cornelius by these works of his.

The expression that these works have come up as a memorial before God is anthropomorphitic and speaks of God as a great king who made a permanent record and now proceeds to reward Cornelius. We now see why Luke used the participle “begging” as a designation for the praying of Cornelius (v. 2). Cornelius did more than merely to use the office of Jewish prayer; he begged God to enlighten his heart, to fulfill the great Messianic promises, to grant him a share in those promises. These were the petitions that were now to receive a notable answer. That, of course, was wonderful grace for Cornelius personally. But our view must not be too narrow.

Others, as devout as Cornelius, received no angelic message, no miraculous answer. God was using Cornelius for a far higher purpose, namely to open the door of the church to all the Gentiles. For this he chose Cornelius; he might have chosen another. God manages his own affairs in his own superior and most perfect way. It is not necessary to make ἀνέβησαν a timeless aorist (R., W. P.) when it is plainly the English perfect “have come up,” an ordinary recent past act.

Acts 10:5

5 Although God sends an angel to Cornelius, that angel is not to preach the gospel to him. Again, as in the case of Philip, God honors the ministry he has established. Angels may help to connect men with God’s appointed preachers, they are never allowed to do more. So Cornelius is told just what to do to get Simon Peter. Note the middle imperative, “summon for thyself,” which indicates that Peter would have a message for Cornelius.

Acts 10:6

6 The two Simons are carefully distinguished, each with the indefinite pronoun that is equal to our indefinite article: “a Simon.” The passive ξενίζεται = he is received as a ξένος or guest, i. e., “he lodges.” The fact that Peter’s host is a tanner is again mentioned but apparently only in order to identify him, and for the same reason the detail is added that he has a house (“for him is,” idiom) along by the sea (no article is needed in the Greek). Tanneries required much water, and Simon seems to have done his tanning where he lived. There is here no idea of ceremonial uncleanness as a motive why Cornelius should not be afraid of sending for Peter.

Acts 10:7

7 And when the angel who was speaking to him went away, having called two of the house-servants and a pious soldier of those holding to him and having recounted to them everything, he commissioned them to Joppa.

We here learn more about Cornelius. He, of course, at once acted on the word of the angel. The fact that he had a number of οἰκέται (a mild term for slaves who were used as house servants) is not surprising considering his station. The soldiers, of course, were under his command; but we see that he selects one “of those holding to him” who is called “pious,” the very adjective that was applied to Cornelius himself in v. 2. See the participle προσκαρτεροῦντες in 1:14; 2:42; 6:4 (these with neuter Objects), and in 8:13 (with Philip as the object). A number of soldiers held to their commander because of his religious convictions which they shared.

The idea that these soldiers were merely attendants of their commander does not satisfy the expression, another word would be used to express that thought. It is only a guess to say that the soldier was sent along to protect the two slaves—they needed no protection, for no danger threatened them on the road. These three men were selected because they were spiritually closest to Cornelius. Their respective stations did not matter; as for that, all three messengers might have been slaves or soldiers. The point is that we here have a Roman officer who shared his religion with those who were far beneath him. Military officers usually act very superior to those beneath them; their official pride makes them aloof. The more noteworthy is what we note in this centurion of the elite Italian cohort.

Acts 10:8

8 We see why these particular men were selected. Cornelius “recounted everything to them,” took them completely into his confidence. They were not given a mere formal order to summon Peter but were told all about the angelic vision. This most sacred and intimate matter Cornelius shared with these men; they had to be men of a type in whose case such a thing was possible. All these points are of great value and help us to understand why Luke goes into such detail.

Acts 10:9

9 Now on the next day, while they were travelling and drawing near to the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray at about the sixth hour; and he became quite hungry and was desiring to taste something. But while they were making ready, there came over him an ecstasy, and he beholds the heaven having been opened and coming down a kind of receptacle like a great linen sheet being let down by four corners to the earth, in which there were all the four-footed and creeping things of the earth and flying things of the heaven. And there came a voice to him, Having arisen, Peter, slay and eat! But Peter said, By no means, Lord, because never did I eat anything common and unclean. And again a voice a second time to him, What God made clean, do thou stop making common! Moreover, this occurred three times; and immediately the receptacle was received up into heaven.

The two genitive absolutes picture the three messengers on the way and drawing near to the city. About this time, at noon, one of the regular Jewish hours for prayer, Peter retires to the housetop where all is quiet in order to pray. The aorist indicates that he was offering definite prayers and not merely praying in general, which would require the present infinitive. As the Lord prepared Ananias for Saul and Saul for Ananias (9:10–12), so, after preparing Cornelius, he now prepares Peter. The δῶμα is simply the flat housetop and not the upper room built on the housetop, to designate which Luke would have used the regular word as he does elsewhere. It appears as though this tanner was too poor to have such an upper room in his house.

Yet we must not imagine that Peter was out on the open roof under the noonday sun. When travelling through Syria and Palestine we saw many smaller houses with booths on their roofs. Some shelter similar to this may have been used by Peter.

The messengers had made good time. Starting after three in the afternoon, they were now, at noon of the next day, entering Joppa. They had covered the distance of 250 stadia or 24 miles by traveling even at night. They traveled on foot as a matter of course.

Acts 10:10

10It may have been due to fasting. At any rate, Peter became “quite hungry,” πρός in the adjective denoting addition: “very hungry.” This adjective, as M.-M. 550 remark, is one of the diminishing number of New Testament words of which it must be said, “Not found elsewhere.” The imperfect ἤθελε describes Peter’s desire to eat; Luke uses γεύσασθαι, the active of which means, “to make taste,” and the middle thus, “to taste for oneself.” Peter longed for the taste of food. R., W. P., ingeniously suggests that Peter perhaps smelled the food being prepared below in the house. At least Luke informs us that the folks were getting a meal ready. This seems to have been a delayed ἄριστον which was usually eaten at ten o’clock and was not the δεῖπνον, the main meal which was eaten toward evening.

Then came the ἔκστασις which Luke describes in detail. The word describes a condition when the mind and the senses are lifted out of their natural surroundings and functions and are enabled to receive supernatural impressions and revelations by means of visions or other divine modes of communication. Compare Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, 285. A case in point is that of Stephen, 7:55, 56. The ὅραμα of Cornelius refers to the same thing although it is named according to what he actually saw, while ἔκστασις names the condition in which the person is when he sees, hears, etc. Such a vision and ecstasy is divinely wrought and has nothing to do with morbid states which are self-induced such as spiritualistic trances.

Acts 10:11

11In describing the vision Luke employs the vivid present, “he beholds.” Peter’s eyes saw the heaven standing open (the perfect participle with present connotation), and out of its superearthly radiance “coming down” σκεῦόςτι, “a kind of receptacle,” which is described as a great ὀθόνη or linen sheet that was being gradually let down to the earth by four corners.

Acts 10:12

12Luke continues: “in which there were,” etc. We take it that the great sheet came to rest in front of Peter so that its contents were clearly visible to him and were within his reach: “all the four-footed and creeping things of the earth,” first the neuter adjective and next the neuter noun, “and flying things of the heaven,” another neuter adjective. The reason “the things swimming in the waters” are not included is because all the creatures were alive, and fish would not be alive in a sheet and out of the water. We need not translate, “all manner of,” for the sense is plain without an interpretative rendering. The point of emphasis lies in this πάντα which includes creatures that were regarded as “unclean” as well as those that were regarded as “clean” by the Mosaic law. Here all of them were together in the same pure, clean, white linen sheet, all alike let down by invisible hands from the open heaven and thus from God himself.

Acts 10:13

13Then came a voice, evidently out of heaven, we assume an angel’s voice, which bade Peter slay and eat. The circumstantial ἀναστάς illustrates what we said on the use of this participle in 9:18. Note that θύω means, “to make go up in smoke” and thus, “to kill as a sacrifice to God,” finally merely, “to slaughter or slay.” It is God himself, then, who here abrogates the old Mosaic commands regarding clean and unclean animals and foods, and this is an illustration of the abrogation of all the Mosaic regulations regarding cleanness and uncleanness—a far-reaching command, indeed.

Acts 10:14

14But here Peter reveals himself as the same character that is presented to us in John 13:8, where he refused to let Jesus wash his feet. So here he, too, refuses: “By no means, Lord! Because never yet did I eat anything common and unclean.” To get the force of this answer note that μηδαμῶς, because of its μή, expresses Peters thought: “In no way let it be” with the optative of wish εἴη, or with the imperative to the same effect ἔστω; while οὑδέποτε with its οὑ states the negative fact: “never did I eat.” If Peter had said οὑδαμῶς, the refusal would have been far more blunt: “In no way will I do it.” Peter’s is not a mild protest, nor is it a downright refusal; it is a shocked declining of the very idea. Why he is shocked he states with ὅτι, because during all his life he never ate a thing κοινόν, this to be understood as ἀκάθαρτον, “common” in the sense of “unclean,” prohibited in the Mosaic regulations regarding food. The force of the reply is: “Goodness, Lord, do not ask me to do that!” Compare Lev. 11; Deut. 14. The Greek construes the negative particle οὑ in οὑδέποτε with the verb: “did not ever eat”; we combine it with the object: “I ate nothing ever.” While it is like the Hebrew lo—kol, it is common in the Koine. R. 752.

This reaction of Peter’s is most noteworthy as revealing to us the deep hold the old Jewish regulations about ceremonial cleanness had even upon the apostles, and how much was necessary to break this hold and to open the door of the church to the ceremonially unclean Gentiles. The Lord himself had to intervene as he here did in order to bring about the break that simply had to be made. It was revolutionary in the highest degree even for the apostles. Even they needed much time to recognize that all the ceremonial laws were only temporary, intended only for the old covenant, in force only until the Messiah should come, and not the divine will for all time. Peter answers the Lord because he knew that this was his command although an angel had uttered it.

Acts 10:15

15The answer Peter receives is stunning and given in a tone of mighty warning. It is the same voice that replies although Luke again writes only “a voice”; “again a second time” is pleonastic, and the phrase with ἐκ is idiomatic. In negative commands with the present imperative an action already begun is ordered to stop, i. e., not to continue, R. 851, etc. So here: “Stop making common!” “What God made clean,” God himself, actually made clean (aorist), refers, not to some present act, but to his act in abrogating all the Mosaic regulations through Christ who by his death and his resurrection fulfilled the promises of the old covenant and thus established the new; hence also the aorist, “did make clean.”

All the old Mosaic regulations were to make Israel a separate people and prevent their intermingling with the pagans who surrounded them. They all served to preserve Israel and its treasured promises lest these latter be dissipated and lost. This was done, of course, in the interest of Israel but equally in the interest of the Gentile world, for the preservation was made for the sake of the human race. After the fulfillment had been wrought through Christ, its blessings were to go out to all nations. Israel’s separation had served its purpose. The veil in the Temple was rent. “The middle wall of partition” had been broken down, Eph. 2:14; now there was “neither Jew nor Greek,” Gal. 3:28; the old had decayed and vanished, the new had come in Christ, Heb. 8:13.

A test was made in the matter of meats in the case of hungry Peter. He was warned to stop contradicting God by making unclean and unholy what God had relieved of this stigma and had thus cleansed. It sounds like an angel’s word, for he is speaking of what God has done.

Acts 10:16

16This occurred three times, and then the great sheet was suddenly received up into heaven. Did Peter refuse a second and even a third time after that first forceful warning? It seems so. Here there is shown the patience of the Lord in giving us time to adjust ourselves to the truth. Three questions were put to Peter in John 21:15, etc.; three prayers were uttered in Gethsemane; three times Paul besought the Lord to remove the thorn in his flesh, 2 Cor. 12:8. We often note threefold repetitions. Ordinary emphasis is attained by one repetition; the double repetition intensifies still more.

Acts 10:17

17Now, while Peter was greatly perplexed in himself as to what the vision he saw might mean, the men that had been sent by Cornelius, having inquired through for the house of Simon, stood at the portal and, having called out, were trying to learn whether Simon, called Peter, was lodging there. Now, Peter continuing to reflect concerning the vision, the Spirit said to him; Lo, three men are seeking thee. Now, then, having arisen, go down and be going with them in no respect doubting, because I myself have sent them.

After the vision had ended, the imperfect compound with διά describes Peter as sitting there on the housetop “thoroughly perplexed.” The idea is not that he did not understand the vision itself, namely as far as unclean animals were concerned; that was too obvious. Peter realized that the vision meant much more; “what it might be,” i. e., it had him thoroughly unsettled. The indirect question with the optative and ἄ̣ν is the apodosis of a condition of potentiality and is retained unchanged from the direct question, the protasis, of course, being understood: “What might this be if it were explained?” What bearing did it have? What application should Peter make of this warning not to make common what God had cleansed?

The answer was to be found at the portal that led into the courtyard of the house. There were the men that had been commissioned (perfect participle: now acting on their commission) by Cornelius. The aorist participle states that they had succeeded in inquiring their way through (διά) to Simon’s house which was along the seashore. Again we note that Simon could not have lived in a pretentious house. The portal was probably a passageway that led through the building itself into the inner yard.

Acts 10:18

18Here they had called aloud until someone came and opened the doors, and at the moment they were trying to learn (the imperfect, although some texts have the aorist) whether the Simon who had the additional name Peter was lodging there.

Acts 10:19

19Leaving them in that act, Luke takes us back to Peter who, in the genitive absolute, is pictured as still being engaged in reflection concerning the vision, i. e., concerning its import, the double compound (a hapaxlegomenon) signifying that his mind was going through and through (διά) and stopping in (ἐν) what he had seen in order to discover its full meaning. In the midst of this effort “the Spirit spoke to him” in the same way that Peter had often experienced, especially when he was directed to perform this or that miracle.

The words of the Spirit are actually stated in this case. Peter is not left to draw timid conclusions from the vision; the matter is so important in every way that the Spirit himself proceeds to show Peter the full bearing of the vision. “Lo, three men are seeking thee!” excludes the implication that Peter heard the men calling in the street below and overheard even his own name in the inquiry they made. No, this is the first information granted him. But so much is plain: the coming of these men is not accidental, their coming at just this moment is somehow connected with the vision and its real import. Some texts read “two,” a few omit the numeral. These are variations that may be disregarded.

Acts 10:20

20The claim that ἀλλά has an adversative force in all connections is naturally also made in the present instance, but this claim can be upheld only by inserting an adversative idea that Luke fails to indicate: “Three men are seeking thee; but (do not let yourself be sought and do not hesitate any longer, on the contrary), having arisen, go down!” But Peter had not been hesitating, had not been letting himself be sought; there is no “but” and “on the contrary,” R’s doubt in W. P. is groundless. This is the copulative ἀλλά which is described in R. 1185, etc.; it is continuative and adds an accessory idea and is to be translated “yea” or “now then.” Peter’s arising and going down now that he knows that these men are seeking him is to follow as a matter of course. Note another ἀναστάς (v. 13; 9:18), here it means as much as “hurry” and go down.

But he is to do more: he is not merely to go and to find out what they want, he is to accede to their request, to be going with them, and to do this by dismissing any misgivings on his part. The διακρινόμενος is in Peter’s mind and not in his conduct (R., W. P.), and μηδέν is adverbial, “as to not a thing.” It is very well to tell one not to waver in his own mind, to let nothing make him judge for himself now this way and now that way (διά, note also the middle voice); it is quite another thing to get a man’s mind to the point where he will actually not do that. This other thing the Spirit accomplished with one simple stroke: “because I myself (emphatic ἐγώ) have sent them” (so that they are now here).

Here is the counterpart to “God” in v. 15: if God cleansed, Peter ought to be satisfied; if the Spirit said to go with these men, Peter ought to drop any misgivings about going. When we have God’s authority, any scruples on our part insult God. On God’s authority we must act even if we do not fully understand all that he commands or promises. Too often our trouble is that we invent his authority for what he does not want us to do; and when we do what he disapproves we refer it to him as having demanded it.

Acts 10:21

21And having gone down, Peter said to the men: Lo, I am the one whom you are seeking! What is the reason on account of which you are here? And they said: Cornelius, a centurion, a man righteous and fearing God, also attested by the whole nation of the Jews was directed by a holy angel to summon thee for himself to his house and to hear utterances from thee. Accordingly, having called them in, he lodged them.

Peter now acts with perfect assurance. He introduces himself as the man they are seeking and, of course, is anxious to know the αἰτία, here “the reason” for which they are here. The Spirit had intimated nothing in regard to that point; all that was accomplished was to make the connection between Cornelius and Peter on the basis of Peter’s vision. All else would follow in natural order step by step.

Acts 10:22

22The men related their errand briefly. They introduce Cornelius fully so that Peter may exactly understand with whom he is dealing. What we know from v. 1, 2 is amplified. Now we have δίκαιος, “righteous,” which is often disposed of with the remark that Cornelius observed the Jewish regulations. But he was not circumcised, he did not live kosher—a point of special importance in regard to Peter’s visit at his house—he was not a full-fledged proselyte. This explanation of “righteous” will not do.

The term is always forensic, it is exactly like the Hebrew tzaddiq and is well defined by C.-K. 309: he who is able to stand before God, whom God justifies, the God-fearing man. In this case the judge is God and not men, for they are spoken of separately. After adding the connection with the synagogue the messengers state that Cornelius is “attested by the whole nation of the Jews,” meaning, of course, the entire body of Jews in Cæsarea; “of good report” (A. V.), “well reported of” (R. V.) gives only the general sense of the participle.

This is the man who “was directed by a holy angel” to summon Peter. The verb means that he received a communication, and “by an angel” implies that God sent this word; there is no idea of “warning” as in our versions. The implication is only that Cornelius received directions in answer to petitions he had made. He was to summon Peter “to his house”—an important point; Peter is to enter this Gentile’s house. Now, no strict Jew would think of doing such a thing because of the defilement involved. Here Peter began to see the real import of his vision.

Peter is to lodge with this Gentile, to eat of his non-kosher food, etc. So all of this was contained in the vision of those many unclean animals and birds. And the Spirit had told him not to waver in regard to anything. This summons is to the effect that Cornelius may hear utterances from Peter, i. e., whatever the Spirit may give him to utter to a man such as this. In other words, here God was not only opening the door to the Gentiles for Peter but literally thrusting Peter in; he, too, was receiving directions from God and could not but comply.

Acts 10:23

23The men had a long, hard trip behind them and, Gentiles though they were, Peter invited them into the house and lodged them for that day and the night, his own host also welcoming these guests. Yes, Peter had a great deal more than food to digest when, hungry as he was (v. 10), the meal that was in preparation (v. 10) was now served to him and to these three unexpected Gentile guests.

Now on the morrow, having arisen (circumstantial as in 9:18; 10:13, 20), he went out with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa went along with him. And on the morrow they went into Caesarea.

The journey was begun the next morning, and six brethren from Joppa went along (11:12), which made a party of ten. We cannot say that Peter was fortifying himself with witnesses, for these men saw only what happened in Cæsarea after Peter had gotten there, and the important matters, the vision of Cornelius and that of Peter, were beyond their direct ken. The brethren went along because of their interest in what was transpiring.

Acts 10:24

24They traveled all day, put up for the night, and arrived in Cæsarea the following day (see v. 30). We take it that everything had been planned in advance by Cornelius-so that he knew just when his messengers and Peter would arrive.

And Cornelius was expecting them, having called together his relatives and close friends. If Peter had not been found or had not accompanied them, the messengers would probably have traveled all night and would thus have arrived that night. After the night had passed and they had not arrived, Cornelius was in high expectation and knew approximately when his men would return and bring Peter with them. So he summoned all his relatives and also his close friends. All these were alike in their faith, all had been informed in regard to what Cornelius had done, all were anxious to hear what message Peter would bring them. The congregation is assembled and is waiting eagerly for the preacher.

One cannot but admire this Roman officer. He is the leader of this flock; many of them owed their faith to him and to his influence. Only one man is needed to start a congregation if he is at all the man he ought to be. We should like to have some details about these relatives and these friends. But that is the way with us, we always want to know more than is related.

Acts 10:25

25At this point Codex Bezae and a few other codices read: “Now Peter coming near to Cæsarea, one of the slaves, having run forward, made clear that he had come; but Cornelius, having jumped forth and”—then continuing as in our text: “having met him, on having fallen down,” etc. In spite of the fact that, according to v. 24, the travelers are already in the city while this reading still has them drawing near to it, Zahn regards this reading seriously. What follows also contradicts such a view. But Zahn maintains his hypothesis that Luke issued Acts in two editions, the first being represented in Codex Bezae. The many changes, additions, etc., in this first edition (see our introduction to Acts) receive considerable attention in Zahn’s commentary but deserve little notice and most likely represent some ambitious scribe’s effort to improve Luke’s original.

Now, when it came to pass that Peter came in, having met him, Cornelius, on having fallen at his feet, did obeisance. But Peter raised him up, saying, Rise up; I myself also am a man!

Not on the street of the city or on the road to the city did this meeting occur (Zahn supposes the latter) but, as Luke here states, when Peter went in, namely into the house of Cornelius. Then, as was proper for the head of the house, Cornelius met Peter in what we may call his reception room. Note that we have three εἰσελθεῖν: in v. 24 they go into Cæsarea; in v. 25 Peter goes into the house of Cornelius; in v. 27 Peter and his host go into the room where the assembly is waiting for them. All this follows in proper sequence, but Codex Bezae alters it in order to introduce its addition in regard to the slave’s running in and Cornelius’ leaping up and running out of the city, etc.

The construction ἐγένετο with the subject τοῦεἰσελθεῖντὸνΠέτρον was rather difficult for the older grammarians. Winer calls it a construction that drives the infinitive with τοῦ beyond all bounds and shakes his head at a man like Luke for using it. Meyer speaks of the impossibility of explaining this use of the infinitive in a rational manner and calls it a lone instance of a linguistic Fehlgriff. But such views are a thing of the past. B.-D. finds that τοῦ may be added pleonastically to nearly any infinitive but that a ὅτι sentence cannot be converted into such an infinitive, this being possible only with regard to ἵνα and ὥστε clauses. So one breathes easier.

R. 1067, etc., regards this infinitive with τοῦ which is used as a subject as a Hebraism and finds examples in the LXX and elsewhere. Other explanations may be disregarded. Compare Luke 17:1, and 1 Cor. 16:4. The genitive force of τοῦ has been lost.

Cornelius falls at the feet of Peter and thus makes obeisance to him as to a supernatural messenger sent to him from God. This is the first time Peter had such an experience. The translation of our versions, “worshipped him,” is misleading unless we remember the inferior sense of this verb in many connections, even as “your worship” is only a title of honor for magistrates, etc. Cornelius was not paying divine honor to Peter but was going beyond the limit that a minister of God or even an angel can accept, Rev. 19:10, etc.; 22:8, etc. This act of Cornelius’ does all credit to his humble and willing spirit; but Peter’s refusal to accept such an honor does equal credit to him. In great St.

Peter’s in Rome they still kiss the big toe of the bronze statue of St. Peter; the writer saw a woman and her baby in the act, and if the guide, a learned Italian professor, may be believed, that bronze toe is kissed away and has to be renewed about every so often. Peter ought to visit St. Peter’s.

Acts 10:26

26Peter promptly raised Cornelius with the peremptory aorist imperative, “Rise up!” and added that he himself was only a man, ἄνθρωπος, a human being. Let all dignitaries in church and in state remember that. Orientals are far more demonstrative by bowing down their faces to the earth than we Occidentals are. This discounts the obeisance on the part of Cornelius but yet leaves it too strong for Peter.

Acts 10:27

27And conversing with him, he went in and finds many having come together and said to them: You on your part understand how unlawful it is for a man, a Jew, to be in close contact with or to be visiting with one of another nation. And yet to me God showed to declare no man common or unclean; wherefore also without gainsaying I came on being summoned. Accordingly, I ask for what reason you summoned me.

A beautiful picture: Peter and Cornelius in conversation as they enter the larger room where the whole company sat as an audience. Luke uses the historical (aoristic) present: Peter “finds many having come together.” So many that it surprised him. The messengers had not told him that, and Cornelius had probably just mentioned the fact that others were in the room into which he led Peter.

28, 29)In a simple but very direct fashion Peter explains his presence in the house of a Gentile, in contact with this Gentile audience. Note the pivotal points: you know—yet to me God showed—wherefore I came——accordingly I ask. Since all Peter’s hearers know that it is ἀθέμιτον for any man who is a Jew (the second noun is predicative to the first) to maintain close association with one of another nation, i. e., a non-Jew, or even to be going to him, i. e., keep visiting him, they will naturally want to know how Peter, a Jew, can enter among them for an association that because of its nature must be close, in fact, very close. From the Jewish standpoint such conduct would, indeed, be entirely contrary to law and custom. The κολλᾱσθαι, “to glue oneself to,” refers to close association, and προσέρχεσθαι, going to someone, both being durative, to making a practice of such actions, the second being less serious than the first. The Mosaic law had no specific prohibition to this effect, but the entire law with all its regulations had such a prohibition as a result.

The man who acted otherwise was going contrary, not to one item of the law, but to the law in its entirety. This was thoroughly understood in Judaism, and Peter takes it for granted that these Gentiles, too, know all about it.

Exceptions are sometimes cited, but King Izates, mentioned in Josephus, Ant. 20, 2, 4, etc., is not a true exception, nor are the other cases of making Jewish proselytes. The assumption that the rule of strict separation did not apply to proselytes of the gate, hence not to Cornelius, is mistaken. Why does Peter then speak as he does? Only proselytes of righteousness (of the Sanctuary) were considered the equals of Jews, and the rabbis often spoke very slightingly even of these, as when they were called sicut scabies Israeli. The rule of exclusiveness here stated by Peter was not merely a piece of Pharisaic rigorousness, it was the general rule of Judaism. And the rule itself was general and not to be reduced to the regulation that no Jew was to go to Gentiles of his own accord, which would excuse Peter who had been summoned. Peter says to this assembly: “You know what the law is for Jews in this matter, and you see me here in this house and in your company in direct contravention of this law.”

Peter confesses that he would never voluntarily have gone contrary to that fixed principle of Judaism, Christian though he now was. It was God who showed him (in the vision) to declare no man common or unclean in the Jewish sense. On the two adjectives see v. 14, 15, and note that Peter is practically quoting and therefore used μηδένα and not οὑδένα. Καί is copulative and yet connects adversative clauses; we do not use “and” in that way and hence translate “and yet.” The Greek mind was nimble enough not to need more than καί, which explains what we may call its idiomatic use. “To me,” Peter says, God showed; hence without demurring, I came on being summoned. Peter is acting on divine orders; he himself has them apart from what God had communicated to Cornelius. Since these things are now clear, Peter asks for what reason he was summoned, λόγος being used in the sense of “reason” and not of “intent.”

Acts 10:30

30And Cornelius said: Four days ago, until this hour I was praying, the ninth hour, in my house; and lo, a man stood before me in brilliant apparel and says: Cornelius, thy prayer was heard and thy alms were remembered before God. Send, therefore, to Joppa and call unto thee Simon who is also called Peter; he is lodging in Simon’s, the tanner’s, house by the sea. Forthwith, therefore, I sent for thee; and thou on thy part didst well in having come. Now, therefore, we all on our part are here present before God to hear all things, that have been commanded to thee by the Lord.

The sum of what Peter and Cornelius state before the assembled company is that God himself has arranged this meeting for them. God himself was here opening the door of his church to the entire Gentile world wholly apart from Judaism and the synagogue. That is the feature of the history that Luke here sees and leads his reader to see. This is something that by far transcends Cornelius and Peter, something that must be understood in that light. The phrase with ἀπό is idiomatic and is similar to the use of ἐκ; the Greek always counts forward from the remoter end to himself, we do the reverse. “From the fourth day” = starting at that point. On that day Cornelius was praying “up to this hour” of the day, the time of day that it was now when he was speaking; and by “this hour” he means “the ninth” (v. 3), three o’clock in the afternoon.

R. 471 notes that in μέχριταύτηςτῆςὥρας we have point of time which is then explained as denoting the entire “ninth hour” by the accusative τὴνἐννάτην (ὥραν); this, however, is not the object of the participle (“keeping the ninth hour of prayer,” R. V.) but merely denotes extent of time: praying that long. Fasting (A. V.) is not in the accepted text. “In my house” means in private devotion, all alone, and not in the local synagogue.

Acts 10:31

31Cornelius describes the angel who suddenly stood before him as “a man,” which agrees with all the other passages that mention angels, Mark 16:5, “a young man,” Luke 24:4, “two men,” etc. Although the angels are sexless, they never appear in the form of a woman or of a child (cherubs) but in a form that symbolizes power and authority, a point that ought to be noted when angels are portrayed in church decorations. So also the “brilliant apparel,” pure white as is sometimes noted, shining with superearthly radiance, symbolizes holiness. Cornelius retells what the angel had said about his prayer and his alms in v. 4.

Acts 10:32

32Then he repeats the order he had received to call Peter from the tanner’s house in Joppa. Here the point must not be overlooked that Peter is to come to this Gentile’s house. He was already at a tanner’s house, at the home of a man who was considered unclean from the Jewish standpoint because he handled hides; he is to go much farther: the one step was to lead to the next, to the one that was really important for the spread of the gospel.

Acts 10:33

33Cornelius complied with the angel’s orders very promptly and expresses his happiness that Peter, too, came so readily. R., W. P., calls καλῶςποιεῖν a regular formula for expressing thanks (Phil. 4:14; 2 Pet. 1:19; 3 John 6), the participle neatly bringing out the act for which thanks are extended. The sense is: “We certainly thank thee for having come.” And now, in a fine conclusion Cornelius adds: “Here we all are to hear what thou hast to tell us!” Every word and every turn of expression is important.

“Now” the great moment has come to which all these supernatural communications have led. “We all on our part are present here” (note παρά), eager and anxious, ἀκοῦσαι, aorist, to hear effectively and thus hearing to obey. “In the presence of God” with his eyes resting upon us voices the faith that all these Gentiles had received in their hearts because of their connection with the synagogue. Cornelius indicates his military training when he says, “All things that have been commanded thee by the Lord,” the perfect participle implying that they stand as the Lord’s permanent orders. As military orders, especialy those of the commander-in-chief, are obeyed without question, so Cornelius and all those present intend to obey what the Lord (here referring to God) will communicate to them through Peter.

This is, indeed, a model congregation, model in its attitude toward God, toward his Word, and toward his minister. Here there is true willingness to receive, believe, and obey. Here there is no “if” or “but”; they will accept “all things.” Why? They come from the Lord God. Here there is implicit faith, which, however, rests, as it must, on the explicit. They do not as yet know what Peter will say but they do know that what he will say comes from God, and so they are willing to believe.

When this example is held up to our congregations, let it not be overlooked that our congregations must have the same assurance regarding their preachers, that what they say is, indeed, “all that has been commanded to them by the Lord.” For with this expression Cornelius paints the model preacher.

Acts 10:34

34And having opened his mouth (the sonorous formula for proceeding to an important address), Peter said: Of a truth I am comprehending that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation the one fearing him and working righteousness is acceptable to him. The Word which he sent to the sons of Israel, proclaiming as good news peace through Jesus Christ, this is Lord of all.

Luke first mentions two preliminary statements that are parallel to each other and decisive for all that follows, one about God and one about his gospel Word. Peter confesses that “of a truth,” literally, “on the basis of reality,” he is comprehending (simple progressive present), grasping more and more that God is not a respecter of persons, partial to the Jew merely because he is a Jew, unfair to the Gentile just because he is a Gentile. Προσωπολήμπτης occurs only here and in Chrysostom, but its cognates are used; it refers to a judge who looks at a man’s face and renders a verdict, not in accord with the merits of the case, but according as he likes or dislikes the man. The notion of bribery does not lie in the word.

Acts 10:35

35In reality God does the contrary (ἀλλά): “in every nation” he accepts only those who fear him and work righteousness. Jew and Gentile who fail to do so he rejects. God is a just Judge. This is the fear of which both Testaments speak constantly, the mark of godly men, the fear of reverence, faith, obedience. And ὁΘεός is the true God who reveals himself in the Scriptures and not God as some imagine him according to the formula:

Jud’, Heid’ und Hottentott,

Wir glauben all’ an einen Gott.

Both “God” and this “fearing” are definitely revealed in the Word, and neither term is to be determined by men. A wrong conception of God involves a wrong conception of what fearing God means; and vice versa. No greater insult can be offered to God than to disregard his Word concerning himself and our relation to him. In no way does Peter say or imply that a pagan who is serious about what he is pleased to call god is accepted by God.

The first participial designation would suffice, but a second is added in order to make the matter still clearer. Both participles are present, durative, qualitative, substantivized by the article. We have both ὁποιῶν and ὁἐργαζόμενοςδικαιοσύνην with no difference in sense; they are allied to similar expressions such as “pursuing righteousness, faith, love.” Thus an attitude of life is referred to, one that is bent on securing “righteousness,” a quality of soul and of life that God’s verdict approves.

This is far more than doing single deeds and something totally different from doing deeds that men in their verdict are pleased to judge as righteous. See C.-K. 315. The sinner does righteousness when he repents, and a mark of this condition of righteousness is daily contrition and repentance. The contrite sinner does righteousness when he believes and accepts God’s pardon in Christ Jesus, and the mark of this condition of righteousness is faith daily renewed. The believer does righteousness when by faith he runs the way of God’s commandments, follows in the footsteps of Jesus, bows to the first table of the law and then also to the second.

Doing righteousness is not the simple matter that some make it. Let them look at Cornelius! If his honest pagan convictions had been sufficient, why did he seek the synagogue? If the synagogue had been enough, why was Peter here? A few moral rules of life apart from the Triune God, without Jesus, the Redeemer, are a travesty on Peter’s words and will bring tragedy to their advocates. The verbal adjective δεκτός, “one received,” refers to God’s judgment.

Acts 10:36

36As Peter’s view is broadening in its true comprehension of God, so also is it in its true comprehension of God’s gospel Word. No man can fear God and work righteousness and be accepted by God without the gospel, that gospel as a promise of the Messiah in the old covenant and as fulfillment in Jesus in the new. Peter says that God commissioned this Word, sent it with a message (ἀπέστειλε) to the sons of Israel, “sons” (not “children,” our versions). The connotation in “sons” is valuable: these were the legal heirs of Israel who inherited his position and prerogatives in the covenant (see the term in 5:21; 7:23, 37; 9:15; it always has the same high connotation). Not because they were “children” and dear to Israel (τέκνα) but because they were the “sons” and heirs of Israel (υἱοί) did God send his great gospel of Christ to the Jews, and being “sons,” they had the high and holy obligation to be like their father Israel in faith.

When he describes this Word and its contents, Peter says of it: “proclaiming as good news peace through Jesus Christ.” This is the εἰρήνη, Hebrew shalom, of which Jesus Christ, in his person and his office combined (see 2:38), is the Mediator (διά). He purchased and won this “peace,” the fruit of his salvation, and bestows it by proclaiming the good news of it, which εὑαγγελίζεσθαι of the Word awakens and is intended for faith. Since it is here used in connection with “the Word” and the verb “gospelizing,” “peace” must refer to the saving peace of salvation for sinners when God accepts the sinner for Christ’s sake and remits all his sins. This mighty statement should not be toned down by introducing peace between Jew and Gentile, between nation and nation, man and man.

With the resumptive οὗτος Peter declares, “This (i. e., Word) is Lord of all” (i. e., of all men), namely of Jew and Gentile alike. It and it alone is the divine Ruler of men; it alone directs, guides, blesses them. The emphasis is strongly on this last predicate “Lord of all” which includes also the Gentile world. As Christ is our saving, beneficent Lord, so is his gospel which brings him to us. It is “the gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:15), of peace with God, and rules our hearts in such a way that we enjoy the fulness of this peace. What a glorious thought: all men under this one Lord, the Word which proclaims peace! A few of the fathers thought that “Word” signified the Logos as sent to the sons of Israel, but that would illy fit the context.

Our versions with their parenthesis and their labored construction of this and the following verse, and still more the grammars with their efforts at construing these verses which lead them even to amend the assured reading of the text, exhibit the confusion that has resulted from failure to understand what Peter says. B.-D. 162, 7 and 295 reject Κύριος when not a single text exists without it; some texts omit ὅν. The parenthesis is peculiarly unfortunate and makes the statement a side-issue, namely that Jesus Christ, is Lord of all. What perplexed so many is the accusative τὸνλόγον at the beginning of the verse; they thought that this was intended as the object of οἴδατε in v. 37 and did not hesitate to make ῥῆμα its synonym (our versions, for instance). Τὸνλόγον is accusative by inverse attraction to its relative, of which construction there are many other examples, 1 Cor. 10:16; Matt. 21:42. This usage is so common that it should have been readily recognized, likewise that οὗτος is resumptive as it is in a number of cases and so plainly resumes all that has been said about this λόγος that was sent to Israel.

Acts 10:37

37After the two great opening statements in regard to God and the gospel, which voice the heart of what Peter has to say to his Gentile hearers, he launches into the body of his address. That is why he uses no connective and thus indicates that his main discourse now begins. You yourselves know the utterance that came down through the whole of Judea, having begun from Galilee after the baptism which John heralded, Jesus from Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and power, who went from place to place doing good and healing all those tyrannized by the devil because God was with him. And we, we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem.

Peter reviews briefly what his hearers already know and contrasts ὑμεῖς with the ἡμεῖς occurring in v. 39: “You, you know all this; we, we were the actual witnesses of all this and can thus testify and assure you that you heard the truth.” They heard the ῥη̄μα, “the utterance” that men made when they told what follows; this talk went through the whole of Judea after starting with great volume from Galilee after John the Baptist preached his baptism and had thereby prepared the way. The news was spread abroad in exactly such a manner. It began after John had come, started with great volume from Galilee, then filled all Judea. The τὸῥῆμα does not resume and continue the τὸνλόγον of v. 36. The latter refers to the gospel itself with all its contents while the former means that men spoke and were not silent but told about Jesus.

But ἀρξάμενος causes the grammarians and the exegetes some difficulty. Zahn thinks that it is a solecism; others decide for the neuter and have a few texts to support them (B.-D. 137, 3) but fail to explain why the masculine appears in all the other texts. Although the participle is masculine it modifies the neuter τὸῥῆμα. We have the same phenomenon in Luke 24:47, where the same participle is in the nominative when the construction demands the accusative. The masculine nominative is retained unaltered in the Greek and is neither solecism nor anacoluthon (R., W. P., and 413); πλήρης is similarly retained without being declined.

Acts 10:38

38“Jesus from Nazareth” does not depend on οἴδατε in v. 37, for it is the object of ἔχρισεν and is proleptic for the sake of emphasis, and αὑτόν is pleonastically inserted where the name would otherwise be placed. The clause with ὡς is in apposition with τὸῥη̄μα. The news that passed from mouth to mouth and filled the land was: “How God anointed him—Jesus from Nazareth—with the Holy Spirit and power.” That anointing took place immediately after the baptism of Jesus. The verb is the historical aorist and reports the one act of anointing and uses the sacred, ceremonial verb χρίω (not ἀλείφω). This verb does not refer to the Incarnation or to Nazareth (Luke 4:14) because Jesus is here said to be from Nazareth, or in a general way to the entire life of Jesus.

Peter is speaking to Gentiles who have come into contact with the synagogue; they seem to need no explanation in regard to the Holy Spirit and how that Spirit could anoint Jesus. The Old Testament must be far clearer in regard to the three Persons of the Godhead than the critics are willing to admit. With the Holy Spirit “and power” makes emphatic the feature of the anointing that was so prominent in all the work of Jesus: he was full of power. The Spirit and the power had come upon him. This refers to his human nature. Peter says still more, namely, that God was with him.

Thus all three Persons cooperated in our redemption. We see no reason why the miraculous anointing of Jesus could not have been generally known and reported as Peter here states. Those who witnessed it certainly told others.

The Greek often uses the relative pronoun in an emphatic manner where we should begin a new sentence. So here and again in v. 39 we have: “who” = “he who,” he was the one who went from place to place (διά in the verb) “doing good and (to be specific) healing (even the worst imaginable ailment) all those tyrannized by the devil.” In this graphic way the demoniacs are described. It is the physician Luke who records these words; compare 5:16; 8:7; and the entire subject as discussed in connection with Matt. 4:24; 8:28; Mark 1:23; Luke 4:33. Peter ascribes demoniacal possession to the devil, διάβολος (“slanderer”), the head of the hellish kingdom who acts through his spirit subjects. All that Jesus did showed that “God was with him,” μετά, in company with him; compare Luke 1:66; John 3:2; and the great statements of Jesus himself, John 8:16, 29; 10:30; and many others. Peter is showing his hearers the man “Jesus from Nazareth” of whom all men spoke at the time he was on earth and reveals his connection with God.

Acts 10:39

39Now the emphatic ἡμεῖς. Peter’s hearers only knew. Peter and the other apostles—for of these he speaks and not of the six brethren from Joppa—had been actual eyewitnesses inasmuch as they had themselves seen “all things which he did both in the land of the Jews (in general) and in Jerusalem (the capital, in particular)”; ὧν is attracted from ἅ. With this emphatic “we” Peter assures his hearers of the full truth of what they thus know about Jesus.

Whom also they made away with by hanging him on wood. This one God raised up on the third day and gave him to become manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses designated beforehand by God, to us, such as ate with him and drank with him after that he arose from the dead.

Peter does not say that his hearers know also these things. They knew that Jesus had been crucified. But Peter prefers to consider the death and the resurrection as a unit and, apart from anything his hearers had heard, himself to present this part of the gospel story. The pronoun “whom,” like the one used in v. 38, is emphatic and really begins a new sentence: “him, whom,” he it was whom they made away with, (ἀνεῖλον), the verb we have met so repeatedly. Καί = even this they did, leaving the subject of this frightful deed unnamed, “they,” yes, “they.” But he adds the aorist participle of means: “by hanging him on wood” as one who was accursed in the eyes of all Jews; see the explanation in 5:30, and the explanation in Gal. 3:13. We feel the throbbing contrasts that we have seen Peter use against the Sanhedrin and the Jews (2:36; 3:13–15; 4:10; 5:30, 31): God anointed him, God was with him, but they even made away with him, and then God raised him up. Here only καί points to the contrast. Peter shows no bitterness toward the Jews who killed Jesus.

Acts 10:40

40With a decidedly emphatic resumptive τοῦτον, “this one,” which includes all that has thus far been said about Jesus, especially what was said about his being killed as being accursed, Peter states the great fact of the resurrection of Jesus and the evidence for that fact. The fact is simply that “God raised him up on the third day,” here ascribing the resurrection to God, in v. 41 to Jesus himself. Both are equally true since all the opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa according to Scripture testimony. God did more: “he gave him to become manifest,” i. e., granted that Jesus appeared. This was not a gift to Jesus but, as the following datives state, a gift to us. The manifestations of the resurrection continued for forty days in the repeated appearances of the risen Savior.

Acts 10:41

41Peter tells this very carefully. Someone may ask why everybody did not see the risen Jesus. Peter says that God gave his being manifest “not to all the people.” These manifestations were intended for the specific purpose of attesting the resurrection of Jesus to the whole world, attesting it beyond a doubt. God could not use anybody and everybody for that task and high honor. When the people who wanted Jesus hung on wood as being accursed heard from the Roman soldiers at the tomb how Jesus had arisen, they bribed these indirect witnesses to lie and to deny the resurrection. People, who in spite of all that they had seen and heard of Jesus had, nevertheless, refused to have faith in him, were unfit to be witnesses of his resurrection, and an appearance of Jesus to them would have increased their unbelief by that much.

God thus chose his own witnesses. The participle states that he selected them with his own hand, for they had to be prepared and qualified properly to attest the resurrection.

“To us,” Peter says, God gave Jesus to become manifest. The pronoun is emphatic by position, “to us,” his believers, 500 at one time, 1 Cor. 15:6, in particular to the apostles to whom Jesus showed himself repeatedly and before whom he ascended to heaven. How complete and how intimate this manifestation was Peter indicates by means of the relative clause: “such as ate with him and drank with him after that he arose from the dead.” Οἵτινες is to be construed with “we” in the inflectional endings of the verbs, and the eating and drinking refer to Luke’s own statements made in 1:4; Luke 24:42. In fact, Peter here speaks as though eating and drinking may have gone beyond what these passages state.

Peter is now acting the witness. He is so specific and exact in his testimony that these Gentile hearers of his who may have heard something about the resurrection of Jesus shall now receive solid assurance. Peter’s testimony is that of an eyewitness. In 1 Cor. 15:4–8 Paul lists the essential witnesses on whose testimony our faith rests. Here Peter ascribes the resurrection to Jesus himself; on ἐκνεκρῶν and its misinterpretation see 3:16.

Acts 10:42

42And he charged us to herald to the people and to attest that this One is he that has been ordained by God as Judge of quick and dead. To this One all the prophets bear witness that every one believing in him receives through his name remission of sins.

Peter means that Jesus gave the order to the apostles to herald, etc. In v. 40, God is the subject and he might be the subject also here in v. 42 if it were not for the following phrase “by God.” Both infinitives are effective aorists: “to herald and attest” so that the work is thoroughly, effectively done and leaves nothing to be added.

Κηρύσσειν means to proclaim aloud as a herald, to make an announcement, “to preach” in this sense. The herald announces what he is ordered to announce, no more, no less, and without alteration. That remains the preacher’s task to this day although many think that they are authorized to herald their own ideas. Only one message has the Lord’s authorization. Any alteration of that message, any substitution for it, is not only empty but, when it pretends to be the Lord’s true message, makes the herald who proclaims it a liar, a false prophet.

When Peter says τῷλαῷ and uses the same word that occurs in v. 41, the reference is to Israel, λαός being steadily used in this restricted sense; “the people” is not to be understood in the sense of men in general, the word for this would be ἄνθρωποι. Peter refers to 1:8, the command to begin preaching in Jerusalem and in Judea, i. e., among the Jews. The idea to be expressed is that thus far and by the Lord’s own direction the heralding has been limited to “the people,” the Jews, as it was, indeed, natural that it should be. This heralding was to be an attesting, the depositions of sworn witnesses as though they were under oath to God.

The climax of their heralding and solemn (διά) attestation was to be “that this One is he that has been ordained by God as Judge of quick and dead.” Here the deictic οὗτος is again resumptive and gathers up all that Peter has said about “Jesus from Nazareth.” He whom God anointed, etc., whom God raised from the dead and gave to be manifest as risen—he is the One, he alone, who has been ordained and stands as thus ordained (this is the force of the perfect participle) by God as Judge of quick and dead. He who by his death and his resurrection redeemed men shall at the last day judge them as to whether they accepted his redemption or not. A natural, yea, an essential connection demands this ordination or appointment of Jesus as the final Judge.

It should be evident that this ordination pertains to his human nature even as Peter used the human name “Jesus from Nazareth.” “For … to have all judgment … are not created gifts, but divine, infinite properties, and yet these have been given and communicated to the man Christ.… what Holy Scripture testifies that Christ received in time he received not according to the divine nature (according to which he has everything from eternity), but the person has received it in time ratione et respectu humanae naturae, that is, as referring, and with respect to, according to the assumed human nature.” C. Tr. 1033 etc., 55, etc. John 5:22 and especially 27; Acts 17:31.

“Quick and dead” need no articles (R. 419), they are like other pairs. The “quick,” “living,” are those who shall still be alive at the end of the world. “Quick and dead” put it beyond question that Peter is speaking of the final judgment. Yet even here Peter is not stressing the universality of the gospel and of Jesus’ work. He is stating only the great acts of God regarding Jesus. How they apply to his present Gentile hearers who are in a class other than the Jews, Peter made plain in his very first sentence (v. 34).

Acts 10:43

43The note of universality struck at the start resounds again at the end of the address. Τούτω is now more emphatic than ever as embracing all that has thus far been said regarding Jesus, “to this One,” yea, to Him, all the prophets of the Old Testament who were known to Cornelius and all these Gentiles through the LXX bear witness that he and he alone is the Savior. The object of μαρτυροῦσιν is the clause with the accusative and infinitive which summarily states what all the prophets testify and is thus in indirect discourse. All the prophets unite in saying that “remission of sins receives through his name everyone believing in him.” This is the Greek word order which places a strong emphasis on both object and subject by putting the former first and the latter last—read it aloud in order to get the effect. See the discussion of ἄφεσις in 2:38. This complete riddance of sin and guilt is received by every believer through Jesus’ name.

The aorist λαβεῖν is used to indicate the one effective act of receiving. Remission and riddance of sins are bestowed on him by God, and thus he has them. The reception is effected “through his name,” διά presenting his Name as the medium that effects the remission. It is, of course, the objective medium, God’s great means for ridding the sinner of his guilt. It is essential, however, to see what ὄνομα means. Review the term as it is discussed in 2:31, 38; 3:6, and in the following passages.

In all of them it is the revelation which brings Jesus and his person and his saving work to the sinner. In all these phrases and connections the “name” does not mean “authority” or “power.” Compare what C.K. has to say on pages 800 and 803: God’s name = “what God is as the God of the saving revelation”, praying in Jesus’ name = on the basis of and in connection with what has unveiled itself in Jesus. C.-K. also discusses the latest literature on the subject, omitting, however, S. Goebel, Die Reden unseres Herrn nach Johannes, II, 120, which is especially fine.

No remission is possible except “through his name.” But this name as the revelation of what Jesus is and what he did and thus is for us always has as its correlative faith, the knowledge of this name and the confidence of the heart which embraces all that this conveys and clings to it and relies upon it in life and in death. Faith is thus the subjective means of remission. Peter says that “everyone believing in him” receives remission, the present participle is subtantivized and describes the person as continuing in faith. The name with all that it embraces and reveals produces this confidence by deserving in the highest degree that all sinners rely upon it and upon it alone for remission. When Peter says “everyone believing” he reverts to v. 34, and gently but most effectively opens the door of the gospel and of the Christian Church to the Gentiles sitting before him in rapt attention. It was, indeed, a great hour in the progress of the gospel!

Acts 10:44

44While Peter was still uttering these utterances, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those hearing the Word. And amazed were the believers of the circumcision, as many as came with Peter, that also upon the Gentiles the gift of the Holy Spirit was being poured out. For they began to hear them speaking with tongues and magnifying God.

Here we see how God himself finished the work which he had inaugurated and directed from the beginning. In 11:15, Peter says that the Holy Spirit descended “when I began to speak”; he had intended to say much more, but all that he had to reserve until some later time. God spoke in his own mighty way at this point by sending the Holy Spirit upon these Gentiles. The verb “fell” denotes the suddenness and also the descent from above.

Acts 10:45

45Before Luke continues the narrative proper he records the amazement of the six Jewish Christians who had come from Joppa with Peter. They are dumb-founded “because the gift of the Holy Spirit is being poured out also upon the Gentiles.” The Greek retains the present tense “is being poured out” of the direct discourse of these Jewish believers; but it includes more than this one instance of outpouring and states that as a general thing, as this striking case shows, the Gentiles were receiving “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” i. e., were by God himself being placed on a par with all believers from Judaism. That was the astounding thing. It was God and God alone and most directly who gave “the gift.” At this time he preferred to dispense with the laying on of hands (8:17); he did not even wait until these Gentiles had been baptized. That is a minor point. At Pentecost the 3, 000 received the Spirit charismatically neither before nor after their baptism.

The Pentecostal charisma was never repeated in the congregation at Jerusalem. There were signs and miracles many but no speaking with tongues.

Confusion has resulted by failing to notice that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” referred to at this point is the same gift that was bestowed at the time of Pentecost, a charisma, and only a charisma and not the gift of the Spirit, and certainly not the gift of sudden total sanctification. All those who spoke with tongues at the time of Pentecost were already saved, and none of those who were saved that day received the Spirit miraculously and spoke with tongues. All those who heard Peter in the house of Cornelius had faith and were saved before the Spirit came and gave them the ability to speak with tongues. The same is true with regard to the Samaritans, 8:15–17. This falling of the Spirit upon people, this charismatic gift of the Spirit, is entirely separate from the Spirit’s reception by faith for salvation and by baptism for regeneration and renewing (Tit. 3:5).

When this is understood, Luke’s account will not be referred to in order to deprive baptism of its saving power as though the Spirit comes apart from and without baptism, and as though baptism is only an empty symbol and sign. Peter did not regard baptism thus in the present instance. Since these Jewish Christians called the charismatic gift of the Spirit a pouring out, some say it was “the baptism of the Spirit,” or “that these Gentiles were baptized with the Spirit.” That may pass but only as long as this “baptism” is viewed as charismatic and as nothing more.

Acts 10:46

46With γάρ Luke explains “the gift of the Holy Spirit”: Peter and his companions “began to hear them speaking with tongues,” ἤκουον, the inchoative imperfect. Note αὑτῶνλαλούντωνγλώσσαις, and in 2:4, λαλεῖνἑτέραιςγλώσσαις; then also μεγαλυνόντωντὸνΘεόν, “magnifying God,” and in 2:11, τὰμεγαλεῖατοῦΘεοῦ—the language is strikingly similar. We have these three in a direct line: 2:2–13; 8:15–17; and now 10:44–46. The miracle is the same, a sudden speaking in languages the speakers had never learned, first by Jewish, secondly by Samaritan, and now thirdly by Gentile Christians, the plain intention being to show that God made no difference between them, in particular by placing the Samaritan and the Gentile believers on a par with the Jewish believers. One Spirit—many tongues!

But some do not share this view. In 2:4, Luke writes ἑτέραις: they spoke with “other” tongues; and here he leaves out this adjective. So in Jerusalem the speaking was done in “other” human languages, but here in Cæsarea in no human languages. There were two kinds of speaking with tongues. And this argument is based on the omission of the word “other.” But what, then, were these tongues if they were not “other” human languages? Various suggestions are offered, but none of them are acceptable.

We have discussed this subject in connection with 2:4 and find full confirmation here. Peter and Cornelius must have spoken in Greek, and Peter’s speech must have been made in that language. And now first one and then another—certainly not several in a babel—“magnified God” by speaking in some other and strange language, one in this, another in some other. This phenomenon occurred again in 19:6. The identity of the occurrence with that of Pentecost is placed beyond question by 15:8: “giving them the Holy Spirit, even as unto us” at Pentecost; also in 11:15–17. At Cæsarea, however, no strangers were at hand to be impressed by the miracle of tongues. The object of the miracle was different, namely to reveal to all present how God “made no distinction between us (Jewish believers) and them (Gentile believers),” 15:9.

Acts 10:47

47Then answered Peter, Can anyone forbid the water so that these be not baptized, such as received the Holy Spirit as also we ourselves? And he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to remain for some days.

“Answered,” as frequently, is used in the wider sense of responding to a situation. “Certainly no one can forbid,” etc., μήτι, the interrogative particle, expects a negative answer. Peter asks whether anyone is able to hinder it that the water necessary to baptize these Gentiles be brought and the sacrament be duly administered. Was anyone able to offer valid objection? He was sure that no one was able.

The verb of hindering, κωλύειν, is construed with τοῦμή and the infinitive, but the sense with μή is: “so that not” (B.-D. 400, 4), it is consecutive; μή is omitted when the infinitive is unmodified (B.-D. 392, 1), and sometimes μή seems redundant according to us (B.-D. 429). This is more exact than R., W. P., that the negative may or may not appear after a verb of hindering.

Οἵτινες is causal: “since they received,” etc., R. 728. It is God himself who makes Peter so certain, for he had given these Gentiles the Holy Spirit. “As also we ourselves,” and again in 11:15, “as on us at the beginning,” also the context of 11:15–17, are decisive as far as the miracle of Pentecost and this one here in Cæsarea are concerned: they are identical.

When Knowling interprets, “The greater had been bestowed; could the lesser be withheld?” he has reversed the two. Paul regards the gift of tongues as being the least of all and shows the Corinthians something far better, 1 Cor. 12:31. Baptism with its regenerating and renewing grace (Tit. 3:5) vastly excels the transient speaking with tongues. Peter makes no wrong comparison in his question. He implies that the gift of tongues is God’s indication that these Gentiles are just as acceptable to him as the Jews (v. 34, 35), therefore baptism and Christianity are intended for them. We should not confuse the gift of the Spirit, which is but a transient charisma, with the gift of the Spirit in and through Word and sacrament, which is permanent and eternal salvation.

When Peter asks about someone hindering the water he is not thinking of the Mediterranean or some body of water but of water to be brought in; somebody might try to prevent its being brought in. We may hinder a person from going to a body of water but never the body of water itself. Peter’s question does not suggest immersion. It sounds as though the whole company was promptly baptized with water that had been brought into the room where all were assembled.

Acts 10:48

48The aorist verbs and infinitives imply that what they speak of was done. We should note the passive, “that they be baptized,” and that Peter does not say “to baptize them,” active. We give an order to do something and not that something be done. It is this passive infinitive that prevents us from agreeing with those who say that Peter ordered the disciples from Joppa who had accompanied him to baptize these Gentiles and then cite 1 Cor. 1:16, and John 4:2, with the remark that the apostles considered it less their duty to baptize than to preach, and overlook the fact that this does not agree with Matt. 28:19, where Jesus puts baptizing and teaching (two participles) on the same plane. As to 1 Cor. 1:16, Paul congratulates himself that the Pauline party could not point to him and make his administration of baptism the basis of their party.

The apostles do not share the view which makes baptism only a symbol instead of a channel of grace. We remember that Cornelius had been ordered to call Peter and not also the brethren of Joppa and that Peter had been ordered to go and not also others. The six brethren went along of their own accord. Peter “ordered that they be baptized” (or “them to be baptized,” our versions) means that he gave an order for water for the baptism. And none of the six brethren were able to object. Peter first asked whether any one of them was able to offer valid objection, and none could.

Then he called for the water and baptized the Gentiles. A strange thing, indeed, if he had not done so with his own hands! Here we have this first body of Gentiles entering the church, entering it through Peter, God making all the arrangements for Peter, and yet Peter telling ordinary brethren to do the baptizing! But the idea behind this view is that these Gentiles were immersed, underwent Zahn’s Vollbad, and that was too great a task for Peter, he shifted it to the six brethren. Even so if it be considered a task, why did Peter not help?

Baptism was the decisive act. That admitted these Gentiles into the Christian Church, admitted them directly from Gentilism and without first having to pass through Judaism. That is why Luke says no more about Cornelius or the congregation that was thus formed in Cæsarea. His story has been told: in Cæsarea the Gentiles first entered the Christian Church. The aorist tenses imply that Peter gladly remained “for some days.” But this means a good deal as 11:3 indicates. Peter had not only entered a Gentile’s house and thus defiled himself according to Jewish ideas, he remained and lodged in the home of Cornelius, ate his Gentile host’s food which was anything but kosher.

All this was decisive for Peter himself. He on his part was sloughing off the old Jewish legalism and ceremonialism. Aurei dies! Bengel exclaims; yes, these were golden days for the entire church.

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

C. Tr Concordia Triglotta, Libri symbolici Ecclesiae Lutheranae. German-Latin-English. St. Louis, Mo. Concordia Publishing House.