Acts 11

CHAPTER XI

PETER JUSTIFIES THE RECEPTION OF THE GENTILES

Acts 11:1

1Now the apostles and the brethren, those throughout Judea, heard that also the Gentiles received the Word of God.

The news of all that had occurred in Cæsarea, no doubt, spread rapidly, chiefly, however, the great fact itself that “also the Gentiles” had become Christians. The point to be noted was that as Gentiles, without first becoming full Jewish proselytes like those mentioned in 2:10, “they received (we should say: had received) the Word,” meaning that, by having thus received it, they had been admitted into the Christian Church. This, indeed, was important news. Where the apostles were when they heard this Luke does not say. The assumption that they were in Jerusalem is not verifiable; like Peter, they were busy here and there, which explains why Luke does not mention their location. The brethren throughout Judea include those in Jerusalem; κατά may be considered distributive (R., W. P.), The news, no doubt, penetrated also to other places, but Luke is concerned especially with Judea which includes Jerusalem.

Acts 11:2

2And when Peter went up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision began to contend with him, saying, To men having foreskin thou didst go in and didst eat with them.

We have no way of knowing how long Peter remained in Cæsarea and how soon he returned to Jerusalem. To speak about a year and to include work in other places is an unnecessary insertion. In v. 12 the six brethren from Joppa appear in Jerusalem with Peter. This makes it unlikely that Peter waited so long a time before going back to Jerusalem, or that he first toured Galilee. It is most probable that the interval did not extend beyond two or three weeks, and that thus these six brethren from Joppa were still in Peter’s company.

In Jerusalem, Peter met objection to his course of action in Cæsarea. “Those of the circumcision began to contend with him,” inchoative imperfect, leaving the outcome of this contending to be stated in the sequel. In 10:45, “the believers of the circumcision” intends to say only that the six brethren with Peter were circumcised Jewish Christians and to contrast them with “the Gentiles” who were not circumcised. Here, however, “those of the circumcision” has a narrower sense, namely those who contended for circumcision as being necessary for membership in the Christian Church, the circumcision party. In Gal. 2:12 the designation is still narrower: the circumcision party as Judaizers and legalists. The beginnings of this party appear here in this contention with Peter. When the proponents of these views developed into a permanent party in the church and caused Paul so much trouble, they mixed the gospel with the old Jewish ceremonial legalism by contending that this latter alone was the true gospel.

Acts 11:3

3The attack on Peter centered in the point that he had gone in to and had eaten with “men having ἀκροβυστία, the prepuce, foreskin,” i. e., uncircumcised men. The point at issue is not that Peter should not have gone in to them, and that it would have been different if they had come to him; the latter would have been just as bad. The point is that simply to go in and then—still worse—to eat was wrong, to say nothing of baptizing such men and receiving them into the church. This circumcision party appealed to the Mosaic regulations which were clear in regard to circumcision and kosher foods. Already these regulations, they claimed, condemned Peter’s proceeding as being totally wrong. This contention was perfectly correct—if, indeed, the Mosaic regulations were still in force; then the only way into the church was through the synagogue.

To appreciate this point we must remember that until this time all the believers, even those in Samaria, were recruited from the circumcised. To bring in uncircumcised men, to enter into full fraternal relation with them in their own houses and at their own tables was a revolutionary innovation. The whole question as to whether this dared to be done came upon these Jewish Christians with a suddenness in the conduct of Peter who had gone and done this astounding thing. The fact that some should object was certainly natural, especially since they were not as yet fully informed as to how Peter had been impelled by God himself to do what he had done. The wonder is that all of them did not object, and also that not a single apostle objected. It has been well said that here Peter was certainly not treated as a pope, to say nothing of an infallible pope. With refreshing openness he was taken to task for his conduct.

Acts 11:4

4But Peter, beginning, proceeded to set out (the matter) in order for them, saying: I for my part was in Joppa city praying and I saw in an ecstasy a vision, a kind of receptacle coming down, like a great linen sheet being let down by four corners out of heaven, and it came to me. Into which having earnestly gazed, I began to consider and saw the four-footed things of the earth and the wild beasts and the creeping things and the flying things of the heaven; moreover, I heard also a voice saying to me, Having arisen, Peter, slay and eat! But I said, By no means, Lord! because a common or unclean thing never yet came into my mouth. Yet there answered a voice a second time out of heaven, What God did cleanse, do thou stop making common! Moreover, this occurred three times; and all were drawn up again into heaven.

We are agreed that the contention with Peter and his reply occurred at a meeting of the congregation at Jerusalem. That, too, explains the elaborate way in which Luke introduces this reply of Peter’s. Ἀρξάμενος is circumstantial but scarcely pleonastic; it marks the importance of the reply as now begun, parallels the adverb “in order,” and means “beginning” and not “from the beginning” (A. V.). Peter began and went on telling the whole story just as it had happened. He did not argue in the least; he let the facts speak for others just as they had spoken for him. The imperfect ἐξετίθετο should receive more attention, “he proceeded to set out.” It continues the previous imperfect διεκρίνοντο.

Both are descriptive, but both intend to hold the reader in suspense as to the final outcome which is recorded by the aorists in v. 18 after Peter has delivered his address. Here were these people contending with Peter, here was Peter telling his story. What was the result? Verse 18 tells us.

Acts 11:5

5Peter tells the story as we already know it from 10:9–16 (the vision of Peter) and the following. Only a few variations need receive attention. Ἐγώ is emphatic, “I on my part,” or, “as for me, I was in Joppa city,” etc. “Ecstasy” and “vision” have been explained. The point of emphasis in Peter’s story is, of course, the fact that God sent the vision of the great sheet to him. He was engaged in his devotions and had no idea of what was coming, least of all that he should have any dealings with Gentiles. He was not even in Cæsarea but miles away. He adds the point that the great sheet “came up to me,” which explains how he could see its contents.

Acts 11:6

6The aorist participle states how he fastened his eyes on the sheet; the imperfect of the finite verb how he began to put his mind on it; then the aorist of the verb how in a flash he saw all the creatures in the sheet. Participle and verbs picture the action perfectly. The imperfect especially shows the mind bent on discovering what the sheet held, the aorist suddenly brings the effort to an end. The list of creatures has the one addition “wild animals,” even as in “the four-footed things of the earth” and in “the flying things of the heaven” the idea is that the animals and the birds were unconfined, wild, not domesticated, few if any of them being permitted to Jews as kosher food.

Acts 11:7

7Yet “a voice” bids Peter to use these creatures as food. Peter does not try to identify this voice.

Acts 11:8

8It was certain to him that he was dealing with the “Lord,” and he states how he made answer to him in words that his present objectors would certainly have used if they had been in Peter’s place. This was the very point at issue: Peter’s eating ceremonially common or unclean, non-kosher food. He shrank from the very idea. He had a clean record thus far. Never had a particle of such food come into his mouth. He had felt exactly as those of the circumcision do who are now taking him to task. Peter said “no” to the Lord. That was not a small thing. Could his objectors have done more?

Acts 11:9

9Then Peter relates the exact answer he received which ordered him to stop making common what God himself had cleansed. We have explained this cleansing in v. 15. Peter had the Lord’s answer to his objection, and it certainly constituted the answer also for his objectors. Let them right here and now stop making food common and forbidden which God himself had made clean and even bade Peter eat! A statement of the simple fact of what had occurred was far more effective than any argument or reasoning of a general nature could have been.

Acts 11:10

10And what Peter tells occurred no less than three times. Let nobody, then, attempt to say that there must be some mistake. And let all note that Peter held out to the end by stressing his old Jewish prejudice and refusal. No, that was not commendable; it showed no virtue in Peter, it showed only God’s patience with his ignorance and his narrowness. Perhaps some of these men may have wondered whether, if they had been put into Peter’s place, they would have held out as long as he did. Yet the vision had accomplished its purpose, it was withdrawn into heaven whence it had come, it did not merely vanish. To the last Peter knew, and now his hearers are to know, that he had been dealing with the Lord.

Acts 11:11

11And lo, forthwith three men stood at the house in which we were, having been commissioned from Cornelius to me. Moreover, the Spirit said to me to go with them, in no respect doubting. And there went with me also these six brethren, and we went into the house of the man. Now he reported to us how he saw the angel in the house stand and say: Send a commission to Joppa and summon Simon, surnamed Peter, who will utter utterances to thee by which thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house.

Remarkable, indeed, (“lo”) was it that at this precise moment those three men who had been commissioned by Cornelius should have appeared. God had sent the vision to Peter, and the Holy Spirit now furnishes the interpretation. No, not by accident did those messengers appear “forthwith.”

Acts 11:12

12Peter would have hesitated to go with them to a Roman centurion and a Gentile; he was just like the men who had raised objection to what he had done. It was the Spirit himself who told Peter to go with the messengers and to stop doubting, letting his judgment go now this way and now that (διά and κρίνω). Does any man intend to say that Peter should have done otherwise than to obey the Spirit and to go as he was bidden? Even in Joppa six of the brethren, the ones who are now here with Peter, were so interested that they went along with him. And so, Peter says, “we went into the house of the man.” Even these six brethren who also were of the circumcision (10:45) did not hesitate.

When Peter says in v. 11, “in which we were (ἦμεν),” he is already thinking of these brethren; a variant is ἤμην, “I was.” Objection had been raised to Peter’s even entering the Gentile’s house (v. 3). That is why Peter is so specific on that point. If entering was already wrong and defiling, eating at a Gentile’s table could be no worse and hence is not discussed.

Acts 11:13

13Peter now tells what God had been doing at the other end by preparing Cornelius and having him summon Peter. He properly quotes the centurion himself and not the messengers in whom he had confided. Here was much more that was astonishing, indeed, but revealed that Peter was only God’s agent, and that God himself was the author of everything. An angel had entered into this Gentile’s house. He evidently did not fear contamination. God had, of course, sent him to that house. This angel directs Cornelius to summon Peter. Both the summons to Peter and his own orders to obey that summons came from God. Why should any Christian man object?

Acts 11:14

14The relative clause in regard to what Peter would do is not found in 10:5, 6, and in 10:22. Here we have a fuller narration. This highly pertinent clause is added in order to let Peter’s hearers know what God’s great purpose was in bringing Peter into this Gentile’s house. He was to tell Cornelius what would save both him and his house (family). It was a matter of saving this household; on the verb and on the noun see 2:47; 4:12. Λαλήσειῥήματα is important, “he shall utter utterances,” he shall be the Lord’s mouthpiece and receive what he is to say from the Lord. “In connection with” these utterances the Lord would save this family, for his word and his grace would be in every word uttered.

“Shall be saved” is passive and implies the Savior as the agent. Despite his connection with the synagogue, Cornelius had not yet found salvation as is clear from 4:12. What Peter says brings out the very thing all these Jewish Christians must realize, namely that they were not saved by circumcision or legal ordinances of Moses but solely and also completely by the utterances which contain the gospel and are connected with the Savior. And these utterances were sufficient to save any man, be he Jew or Gentile.

Acts 11:15

15Now, when I began to make utterance, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as also upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the utterance of the Lord, how he was saying, John baptized with water, but you, you shall be baptized in connection with the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, God gave to them the equal gift as to us as having come to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, I, who was I, as able to hinder God?

Here we have the tremendous climax of all that God did in this case. Luke frequently uses the idiom ἐντῷ with the infinitive, usually the present infinitive but occasionally also the aorist as here. Peter had scarcely begun to speak—we know how little it was that he said, 10:34–43—when God did the decisive thing as far as putting the Gentiles on an equality with Jews in the matter of receiving them into the church was concerned: he gave them the charisma of the Spirit, namely to speak with tongues, exactly as he had done ἐνἀρχῇ (many phrases need no articles), “in the beginning,” for us, namely at Pentecost. We have discussed the identity of this gift in connection with 10:44–46.

Acts 11:16

16When Peter witnessed the charisma at Caesarea, there at once flashed into his memory the Lord’s own utterance and promise which he had made just before his ascension, that word and promise which had been spoken already by the Baptist in Matt. 3:11, “how he was saying” (added circumstantially), “John baptized with water, but you, you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost,” see the interpretation in 1:5, also in Matthew. The promise of the Baptist and of Jesus was fulfilled at Pentecost and had an extension in Caesarea, and Peter at once saw it.

Acts 11:17

17This is clinched by the conclusion which Peter drew and was intended to draw (οὗν). The condition is one of reality which has the apodosis in the form of a question in order the more forcefully to impress Peter’s hearers. If God gave the identical gift to them (Gentiles) as also to us (Jews), they as well as we having come to believe on Jesus, who was Peter and what power had he to interfere and to prevent God from doing such a thing? Τὴνἴσηνδωρεάν is “the like gift” (our versions) in the sense of “the same,” “the equal gift.”

It was God who placed these Gentiles on an equality with the Jews in so far as both believed on the Lord. The unmodified participle πιστεύσασιν is to be construed with both αὑτοῖς and ἡμῖν: “to them as also to us as having come to believe,” R. W. P. Our versions and many commentators would refer this participle only to ἡμῖν, but such a construction would require the article. It is this having come equally to believe that induced God to bestow the equal gift (gift, also in 10:45) “on them as also on us.” The participle is plainly predicative. Having come to faith is the essential thing. By faith the Spirit takes possession of the heart and saves; then, as God deems fit, he may bestow the Spirit also in a charismatic way whenever the interest of the gospel requires this.

Peter asks his critics whether they thought that he was able to prevent God from dealing with these Gentiles as he did. Two questions are fused into one: “Who was I?” and, “Was I able?” The very idea that Peter might hinder God in this bestowal is preposterous. Did his critics intend to claim that he should have attempted that? The question asked them involves also whether they would so hinder God.

Acts 11:18

18Now, having heard these things, they were quiet and glorified God, saying, Then also to the Gentiles did God give the repentance unto life!

Here the imperfects “began to contend” and “proceeded to set out in order” which occur in v. 2 and 4 are brought to their completion in the two aorists “were quiet and glorified.” Here were critics, indeed, but when the actual facts were placed before them, they sought not to carp, they were convinced, they capitulated, “they were quiet” as to any further objection; nay, more, they glorified God, and that for the real and essential thing which is expressed as a deduction by ἄρα, “then” or “accordingly,” namely that “also to the Gentiles did God give the repentance unto life.” “Then” refers to all that Peter had said, most especially to the last part of his address, the bestowal of the Spirit by the charisma of tongues. That was the evidence of something far greater, the bestowal of “the repentance” which brought “life,” ζωή, spiritual, everlasting life.

On μετάνοια see 2:38; it consists of contrition and faith, the turn of the heart from sin to Christ and his pardon. Where this is found, “life” enters, namely the life of faith which is connected with Christ, the Life. This life is invisible, it is in the soul or heart, in this respect it is like our physical life; but, again like our physical life, wherever it is present it manifests itself in endless ways. Those who are spiritually alive love the Lord, confess him, worship him, pray to him, feed on his Word, serve him, etc.

God has succeeded in opening the door of the church to the Gentiles; he succeeded also in having the Jewish Christians who were already within the portal welcome these incoming Gentiles and praise him for bringing them in.

THE CHURCH AT ANTIOCH

Acts 11:19

19Once more, as he had done in 9:31, Luke reverts to Stephen’s death; οἱμὲνοὗν is used as it was in 1:6. They, then, that were scattered due to the tribulation that occurred in the case of Stephen went on through as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the Word to no one except only to Jews.

As a result of the first persecution Luke related to us the conversion of Saul and his story as far as the return to Tarsus; then Peter’s activity outside of Jerusalem which ended with the acceptance of Gentile converts by the brethren in Jerusalem. Now, again reverting to the persecution, Luke records the story of Antioch.

According to a conservative estimate there were 25, 000 Christians in Jerusalem at the time of Stephen’s death. The great dispersion that ensued as a result of Saul’s activity scattered quite a number of these to rather distant and safe parts. Some of them naturally migrated into Phoenicia, into cities like Tyre, Sidon, and Ptolomais along the Mediterranean; others crossed to the great island of Cyprus where many Jews dwelt; finally—and this is the important point to Luke—a goodly number went as far north as Antioch and thus bring this future center of Christianity to our notice for the first time.

The data in regard to Antioch are compiled in the Bible dictionaries. We note that because of its population of half a million Antioch was rated as the third city in the entire Roman empire, being outranked only by Rome and Alexandria. At one time it had been the residence of the Seleucian kings; later it became the residence of the Roman procurators of Syria. Lying a bit inland on the Orontes River, its seaport was Seleucia from which Paul started his sea voyages when he set out on his great missionary tours. Cilicia bordered on Syria, and Tarsus was not far distant from Antioch. Many Jews were residing in this pagan city which exhibited both the splendor and the vices of the Roman and the Oriental paganism. Starting with the present account of Luke, Antioch loomed large in the entire early history of the Christian Church.

When Christian fugitives from Jerusalem, all of whom were native Jews or complete Jewish proselytes, settled in Antioch they naturally spread the gospel among the Antiochian Jews in the synagogues of the city, and Luke notes that this was the extent of their first missionary efforts. These limited missionary efforts were not due to a question of language as between the Aramaic of the Jews in Antioch and the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, on the one hand, and the Greek of the general population of Antioch, on the other. Greek was known to all. In fact, to this day, as we ourselves found in our eastern travels, men residing in these territories speak several languages with ease. In Caesarea, in the house of Cornelius, Peter spoke Greek although he had been but a fisherman on the Lake of Galilee.

Acts 11:20

20But some of them were Cyprian and Cyrenian men, such as, on coming to Antioch, began to speak also to the Greeks, proclaiming as good news the Lord Jesus Christ.

The decisive points are: first, the reading “Greeks” and next, the chronology. We must have the reading Ἕλληνας, the common word for pagan Greeks which is often used in contrast with “barbarians,” the term for natives of all kinds who did not speak Greek and had no Greek culture. Greeks and Jews are also frequently paired and contrasted. Both were on a higher level in the old world although they differed from each other, and all barbarians were beneath them.

The texts which have Ἑλληνιστάς, “Hellenists,” “Grecians,” cannot be correct, for these were Jews, namely Jews who had been born outside of Palestine but were of Jewish blood and religion just as much as those who had been born in Palestine. In 2:9–11 we have quite a list of such foreign-born Jews; the 3, 000 converts made at the time of Pentecost were, for the most part, such Hellenists. In 6:1 we have discussed the two types of Jews, “Hebrews” and “Hellenists.” When Luke states in v. 19 that the Christians at first spoke the gospel to Jews only, the “Jews” were these foreign-born Jews or Hellenists, at least for the greater part, since the proportion of Jews who had been born in Palestine was not so large in Antioch. To say that the gospel was spread among such would mean nothing, for this had been done on an extensive scale on the day of Pentecost and had been done ever since that time. But to say that some Christians were now preaching Christ to pagan Greeks, that, indeed, was a new thing, one that was revolutionary for the Jewish ideas that were still prevalent in the church, and vastly important for all future history.

That, too, is why Luke specifically mentions the Christians who first made this advance in Antioch, namely, not native Palestinians, but Hellenists, Jewish Christians who had been born in Cyprus and in Cyrenia —they began to speak (inchoative imperfect) to these pagan Greeks. Luke omits any further characterization such as he used in connection with Cornelius in 10:2, to the effect that they were “fearing God,” φοβούμενοιτὸνΘεόν, one of the standard expressions for designating proselytes of the gate. No, these were just heathen Greeks without synagogue connections. Here, then, is the continuation of what Peter did at Caesarea; it is even an advance on that.

Now Luke does not date this offer of the gospel to pagan Greeks. He gives us only the general historical connection and places this account after the story of Cornelius. Luke’s indefinite chronology does not, however, justify the view that the extension of the gospel to pagan Greeks precedes the extension God made to proselytes of the gate in Caesarea. If pagan Greeks were already being brought into the church in a great Jewish center such as Antioch, would God go to all the trouble that Luke reports in order to have also Greek proselytes of the gate brought in? The report of the action in Antioch reached Jerusalem promptly and caused no commotion whatever. How could it have been received without dissent if the action of Peter in Caesarea afterwards called forth criticism?

No; we must leave the events in the order in which Luke records them. These Cyprians and these Cyrenians heard what Peter had done, knew what had been said in Jerusalem that “also to the Gentiles God gave the repentance of life” (v. 18), and thus preached the gospel to Gentiles, namely Greeks in Antioch. Luke makes everything plain. In spite of the directions given by God in the case of Cornelius most Christians still clung to their old Jewish narrowness and confined their missionary efforts to the Antiochian Jews; only the men of Cyprus and of Cyrenia eventually went farther by acting consistent with God’s will as this had been revealed at Caesarea in the case of Cornelius.

Acts 11:21

21The gospel achieved a pronounced success among the heathen Greeks. And the Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number that came to believe turned to the Lord. This was due to “the Lord’s hand,” the anarthrous Κύριος signifying Yahweh, which Luke distinguishes from the articulated Κύριος which precedes and follows. The Lord’s hand is his power which worked in a providential way in making everything favorable for these disciples to bring the gospel to these Greeks. He opened many doors to them. This is essential in all missionary work. The work is God’s and not ours, and he either opens the doors or leaves them closed. So many have the idea that they themselves may decide where to work; but it is futile to beat against closed doors.

Thus a great number of heathen Greeks were converted to Jesus. The aorist completes what the imperfect used in v. 20 left unfinished: they began to speak, and a great number turned. No issue should be made of the use of the article with πιστεύσας since this only makes the participle attributive whereas it is predicative in v. 17. Luke describes the great number, it was a number “that came to faith”; of course, he could have omitted the article if he intended to say “a great number on coming to believe.” The aorist participle is ingressive.

Acts 11:22

22And the report concerning them came to the ears of the church that was in Jerusalem; and they sent forth Barnabas as far as Antioch, who, having come and having seen the grace of God, rejoiced and proceeded to exhort all with the purpose of the heart to remain with the Lord because he was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit and faith. And a considerable multitude was added to the Lord.

Literally, the word or substance concerning these Cyprians, etc., “was heard in the ears” (static εἰς). Luke says that the news came to the church, “the one being in Jerusalem,” the mother church. He does not say that the word reached the apostles. The only fair conclusion is that the apostles were absent from Jerusalem as we, for example, saw Peter busy at Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea. It is unwarranted, on the basis of the expression “the church in Jerusalem,” to draw the conclusion that the believers in Antioch were not yet a church. When, then, did they become a church? On ἐκκλησία see 5:11; the church is where believers are found.

It was due merely to the absence of the apostles from Jerusalem, which left Barnabas as the best available man, that the mother church sent him to Antioch. Besides, he, too, was a Cyprian and would thus be the most suitable man to see what his countrymen were doing in Antioch. The view that Peter was not acceptable as the commissioner, and that, therefore, his services were “discounted” for the present task is unwarranted. Peter was absent. Why was some other apostle not sent? Plainly because the other apostles, too, were absent. In 8:14 the apostles do the sending and not the church. The church did not direct the apostles; the apostles always directed the church, and the church always looked to them for its leadership.

The church acted in the present case because it was thought that the apostles would be absent for some time. It was too long to wait until some of them returned; thus it came about that the church acted independently. In this the church had the example of the apostles as recorded in 8:14 (Philip’s work in Samaria). The idea behind this procedure was the same idea that had been followed in that advance movement, namely that all believers everywhere constituted one spiritual body that still had its headquarters in Jerusalem, from which center the apostles still carried on their work, and to which they returned from time to time. The church in Jerusalem acted in good faith and with due wisdom, and the apostles certainly approved its action when one after another finally returned.

Acts 11:23

23So Barnabas went. What he was to do we see from what he did. All doubt as to the reception of Greeks into the church had been removed. That matter was settled completely in v. 18. Barnabas shows that he had no instructions to question the right of these Greeks to come into the church. While it was a new movement and should thus come under the supervision of the central church, the headquarters of the apostles, anything beyond that was not contemplated.

For those in Antioch, too, it was worth much to remain in connection with the apostles and to have their approval for all their work. A true spirit of unity was back of this commission of Barnabas and of all that he did in its execution. That spirit is often lacking today, sometimes to the extent that even this mission of Barnabas is not properly understood.

Barnabas rejoiced because of the grace of God which he saw in Antioch. Note the suavis paronomasia between τὴνχάριν and ἐχάρη. Luke sees more than the faith and the conversions Barnabas found in Antioch, where so many Greeks now believed and confessed. These were the results, God’s grace was the ultimate source. He saw the cause in the effect. To be sure, Barnabas had eyes to see—that is why he was sent on this mission.

Every task calls for a competent man. Barnabas found nothing that needed to be corrected in Antioch. How many congregations could today be visited by a man like Barnabas without his finding something, even much, to correct? Take this very thing of receiving members by just letting people come into the church in order to augment the number without the proper instruction and separation from their old heathen life and connections! Some day a greater than Barnabas will come, see, and—not rejoice.

So all that Barnabas found it necessary to do was to exhort all “that with the purpose of the heart they remain with the Lord.” The imperfect pictures Barnabas as continuing this exhortation, and the present infinitive speaks of continuous remaining. A good start is excellent, but we must endure to the end. Because a text or two has ἐν, “in the Lord,” the R. V. margin offers its translation.

Προσμένειν has the dative τῷΚυρίῳ; to remain with the Lord was the burden of Barnabas’ exhortations, and to do this “with the purpose of the heart,” i. e., with the set determination of the center of the personality (καρδία). Thus Barnabas sought to confirm the believers in Antioch, especially also the recent ones, the Greeks. Since he found everything in such excellent order, it was not necessary that he return to Jerusalem to make report; he most likely sent word in some other way.

Acts 11:24

24The reason that Barnabas showed such interest in the growing church at Antioch was his personal character. Barnabas has been only slightly introduced thus far (4:36, 37), hence Luke tells us more about him. In that he was “full of the Holy Spirit and faith” he was a man like Stephen, of whom Luke records the same thing in 6:5. The Holy Spirit had taken possession of his heart through the Word and filled it with strong and virile faith. When Luke calls him “a good man,” this other description is the basis of his goodness. “Good” is a rather pale translation of ἀγαθός. Since it is his exhortation that Luke explains by calling Barnabas “a good man,” we shall hardly go amiss in making the adjective mean “competent,” “capable,” “serviceable,” i. e., good in what he was able to do for others (C.-K. 4) just as κακός means “good for nothing” in whatever respect one ought to serve his purpose.

Here, then, was not a man who judged the situation in Antioch superficially and merely uttered words of praise to please everybody. Such supervisors of the church do her no good because they are not “good” men. It was a blessing for the church in Antioch to have the approval and the support of a “good” man like Barnabas.

This description of Barnabas has led to the conclusion that Luke himself was one of the Greeks who had been won for Christianity in Antioch. It is thought that he was a member of the congregation at Antioch, and that Theophilus also resided there. Thus Luke would have met Barnabas himself and presently also Saul. Some of the ancient fathers call Luke a Syrian from Antioch, although again, it seems, he is reported to have come only from a former Antiochian family. Attention is drawn to the fact that he seems to take a special interest in Antioch, for instance in 6:5 where he tells us that one of the seven deacons was an Antiochian proselyte. All this is interesting but not conclusive. We fear that even the closest scrutiny will find the available data and hints as to Luke’s home, family, etc., too slight to advance us beyond hypotheses.

The presence of Barnabas in Antioch soon resulted in far more than a visit with a consequent return to Jerusalem. He himself entered actively into the work. Stimulating all the others and helping on his own part, “a considerable multitude was added to the Lord.” Not merely to the congregation but “to the Lord”; the passive implies an agent which we may take to be the Word. Luke does not say whether these new members were Jews or Greeks; his manner of expression leaves the impression that this difference was no longer of moment. The congregation was growing apace; it had a wonderful future before it in the Acts and in the centuries beyond.

Acts 11:25

25He, however, went out to Tarsus to hunt up Saul and, having found him, he brought him to Antioch.

Here there is room for the play of the imagination. We note that Saul returned to Tarsus in 9:30, but that was seven or eight years ago. During this period of time Saul simply drops out of sight, and that is the best that can be said. Some “imagine” that he worked in Tarsus and in Cilicia on the basis of Gal. 1:21, but he then accomplished nothing, for there is no evidence that a single congregation was started by him during those years. Ramsey supposes that Saul was not as yet clear in regard to his mission to the Gentiles, still had the idea that the door to the church led through the synagogue; but Saul did not work even in the synagogue in Tarsus. If we feel that an explanation is necessary, let us say that Saul waited for God’s call as this was promised to him when God told him to leave Jerusalem, 22:17–21. It was a long wait, but Saul bore it well, and now the call came.

What led Barnabas to think of Saul? All we know is what Barnabas did for Saul in 9:26, etc., and we are entitled to add that Barnabas knew that the Lord’s intention concerning Saul was to use him as a chosen instrument especially among the Gentiles (9:15). The Gentiles were now beginning to come into the church in large numbers. May that fact not have turned the thoughts of Barnabas toward Saul? Let us say that the Lord guided the thoughts of Barnabas. Seven years or more are certainly a long time. How did Barnabas know that Saul was still in Tarsus and that his journey to that place would not be in vain? We have no clue in regard to this point. All we know is that he located Saul and that he succeeded in bringing him into the great work that was going forward in Antioch.

Acts 11:26

26And it came to pass for them that even for a whole year they were brought together in the church and taught a considerable multitude, also the disciples bore first in Antioch the name Christians.

This was the year 43 or 44. The important point is that Barnabas and Saul were in close association in the work at Antioch for an entire year. Energetically and in friendly fellowship they worked, successfully teaching a large multitude and bringing them into the church. All three aorists are subjects of ἐγένετο, to which αὑτοῖς is added as a dative of advantage; Luke states what occurred “for them,” Barnabas and Saul. The infinitives are historical aorists which intend simply to report the facts. Luke shows how the two men became intimate in their great work. The “multitude” refers to outsiders who were taught so as to be brought into the church. It is fair to assume that not a few were Greeks and thus needed a thorough teaching.

By being added with τε, the third infinitive is connected with both infinitives that precede and thus states that it was during this year that the disciples bore (or ingressive: came to bear) the name “Christians.” This is an interesting fact. It is at once evident that the disciples did not invent this name for themselves. They always and for years to come called themselves as Luke himself here calls them, “disciples” (see 6:1), or as he has repeatedly called them, “saints” (see 9:13) also, “brethren” (1:15) also, “those believing” or “believers” (πιστοί).

“Christian” appears twice more in the New Testament, in 26:28, and in 1 Pet. 4:16, each time as a name that was given to the disciples by others. Since the name was derived from “Christ,” the Greek word for “Messiah,” it is certain that the disciples got this name in Antioch and not from the Jews who would never have connected the Messiah with the disciples either in a derogatory or in any other way. The Greeks invented this name. Philologians have much to say in regard to the Latin ending ιανος which is appended to a Greek name by Greeks; then, too, they discuss χρηστιανός, which appears as a variant of χριστιανός (Codex Sinaiticus) and was used extensively by others e. g., Tacitus, χρηστός also being used in place of χριστός. In the days of the Roman persecutions the very name was certainly enough to condemn a man. The question is debated as to whether already in Antioch “Christians” or “Chrēstians” was intended as a vicious title or was used only to distinguish the disciples of Christ from the Jews. Monographs have been written on this subject.

As far as Luke is concerned, the active aorist infinitive χρηματίσαι, “to bear a name,” means only that outsiders bestowed the name. As to the spelling of the word by Luke, it is impossible to show that he wrote the name “Chrēstians” and did it in order to show that it was intended as a vilification. The fact that this designation became opprobrious during the persecutions need not be pointed out. There is evidence that the mispronunciation was due to ordinary vulgarity even as Tacitus writes: vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. He himself spells Christus correctly in the same sentence. Since it was given them by outsiders, the disciples would for a long time be reluctant to adopt the name.

Moreover, their reverence for Christ would restrain them from using a designation for themselves which embodied his holy name. We thus conclude that, when the opprobrium attached to the “Christians” is emphasized, we should be content with the reference to the days of Roman persecution and not go back to Antioch and the first invention of the name. There is no indication that during this early period any hostility toward the disciples was manifested in Antioch.

Acts 11:27

27Now in these days there came down from Jerusalem prophets to Antioch. And one of them, by name Agabus, was signifying through the Spirit that a great famine was about to be on the whole inhabited earth; which occurred under Claudius.

“These days” refer to the year Luke has just mentioned, probably to the middle of the year, since it took some time to gather the money for the proposed relief. Here we note “prophets” in the church for the first time; in 13:1 we have “prophets and teachers.” The prophets are far more prominent in the Old Testament than in the new; some of them are towering figures. In the New Testament only the apostles rank with those prophets. The prophets, properly so called in the New Testament, are men of less importance, we may call them Christian teachers to whom the Spirit at times made special direct communications of but minor import. We learn about Agabus as their representative and about two of the communications that he transmitted, the one regarding the famine and the other regarding Paul (21:10, etc.); then also the daughters of Philip are mentioned (21:9). The apostles themselves were prophets in this sense.

Besides this we read about the gift of prophecy which Paul extols as being far superior to the gift of tongues, cf., First Corinthians. This gift any Christian might acquire, and Paul urges all to seek it (1 Cor. 14:1). It consisted in thoroughly understanding the Word and in adequately presenting it. Thus we find “prophets and teachers” combined in 13:1. The apostles, of course, had also this gift in an eminent degree, and next to them are their assistants such as Judas and Silas (15:32).

Acts 11:28

28When it is asked why these prophets went from Jerusalem to Antioch, we prefer to think that their purpose was to deliver the very message which one of them, namely Agabus, conveyed. It is not necessary to think that he received this revelation only after coming to Antioch; it may have come to him in Jerusalem with the intimation that it was to be conveyed to the brethren in Antioch. Note the verb “was signifying.” The imperfect expresses repeated action, and the verb itself implies that he used some symbolic action in connection with his revelation after the manner indicated in 21:11. Luke states no details but only the message itself, that a great famine was impending, μέλλειν with the future infinitive pointing to a famine that is close at hand.

When Agabus states that this famine was to be “on the whole inhabited earth” he indicates that it was to be “great” in its extent. Drought and crop failures would produce famine conditions which affected now this part, now that with more or less severity, so that conditions of distress would affect the whole inhabited world. We need not restrict τὴνοἰκουμένην (γῆν) to the Roman empire; for if all these lands suffered more or less, the barbarian countries would certainly not escape.

Luke has thus far furnished no dates; that is why, writing years afterward, he adds: “which (ὅστις = “which very one,” R. 728) occurred under Claudius,” ἐπί, “in the time of,” R. 603. Claudius reigned from January 41 to October 54. Much of his reign was marked by famine conditions as Roman writers (Suetonius: assiduae sterilitates, Dio Cassius, Tacitus) and Josephus report. The entire empire was not affected equally at the same time and just for one period, but crop failures were wide-spread, and certain regions suffered great distress because they were unable to import much from sections that were less affected.

Zahn’s deduction from Luke’s remark, that Agabus must have spoken his prophecy before Claudius came to the throne, i. e., before January 41, conflicts with his own statement that “in these days” signifies in the year mentioned in v. 26, which must be the year 43–44. Luke’s phrase “under Claudius” is written, not with reference to Agabus, but with reference to Luke’s own time of writing. On the reading in the Codex Bezae with its “we” as implying Luke’s own presence here in Antioch see 16:10.

Acts 11:29

29And of the disciples, as anyone was well off, they determined, each one of them, to send for ministration to the brethren dwelling in Judea. Which also they did, commissioning it to the elders by hand of Barnabas and Saul.

It seems that a link is missing between the general prophecy of Agabus and this action of the congregation at Antioch. How did the brethren at Antioch know that the church in Judea would soon suffer? Luke evidently intends that his reader supply the link. From what Antioch proceeded to do, namely to gather funds for Judea, it is plain that Agabus must have specified that the impending famine conditions in the world would presently bring distress to the church in Judea. The Lord himself sent Agabus from Jerusalem to Antioch at the proper time, in advance, to prepare the necessary relief.

This, it seems, was set under way promptly after the revelation had been received. Everyone of the disciples in Antioch took part, and this was done by joint action of the church. The sentence has been called awkward, and yet it neatly brings out these two points: “they determined” (plural), jointly as a body; “of the disciples, as anyone was well off, each one” (singular), not one holding back.

No; they did not tithe. Saul and Barnabas, although they were former Jews, did not gather funds in this manner. In this very first instance in the Christian Church, when relief on a large scale had to be provided, the correct principle and method were adopted: “as anyone was well off,” the imperfect signifying “continued to be well off or prosper.” This implies that funds were gathered gradually and that each kept giving as he could from time to time, perhaps from Sunday to Sunday. We know how Paul proceeded later on when relief was again necessary for Jerusalem and when he gathered funds from all the Gentile congregations. It was here at Antioch that his later method was first applied. Εἰςδιακονίαν, “for ministration,” recalls “the daily ministration” of food and relief to the widows mentioned in 6:1. The same beautiful word is used which denotes help for the sake of help.

Acts 11:30

30Already the aorists (v. 29) imply that this thing was done, but Luke adds, probably because it covered so long a period: “which also they did,” etc. When the relief became necessary, Barnabas and Saul were the commissioners who were sent from Antioch to the elders in Judea to administer the needed help. This took place after Herod had killed James (12:2), had attempted to kill Peter, had abused the church in Jerusalem (12:1), and had died a most terrible death (12:23), after the Passover of 44. The worst of the famine occurred during the next year.

The relief was sent, we are told, “to the elders.” This term comes as a surprise since Luke has not mentioned elders; but he is writing from his own later standpoint and for a reader who knew what elders were. We might call them pastors. They had charge of the congregations in all their church affairs and attended to the services, the teaching, and the spiritual oversight. Πρεσβύτεροι, “elders,” designated them according to their dignity, while ἐπίσκοποι described them from the viewpoint of their work as “overseers,” “bishops,” both terms denoting the same office. The apostles called themselves “elders,” 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1.

We do not know when this office was inaugurated; it came about naturally as an inheritance from the synagogues with their management by elders. At times the majority of the Jews in a town or a synagogue were converted to Christianity. At first the apostles remained and worked in Jerusalem, but when congregations sprang up everywhere, they were absent from Jerusalem, and elders had to manage even this congregation, to say nothing of the many others. Here Luke speaks of the elders in Judea. Since they were the managers of the congregations, Barnabas and Saul naturally worked through them.

A number of questions arise at this point. Did Saul go to Jerusalem on this relief journey, or did he avoid Jerusalem and dispense relief only in Judea? If he went to Jerusalem, did he meet any of the Twelve there? If he went to Jerusalem, why did he fail to mention this visit in Gal. 2:1? Must we conclude from Gal. 2:1 that he kept away from Jerusalem on this relief journey? Or is this relief journey identical with the journey and the visit described in Gal. 2:1, etc.?

As far as the facts are concerned, Saul and Barnahas went to Jerusalem, for in 12:25 they return from this city after finishing their ministry of relief. Secondly, it is impossible to identify this relief journey with the one described in Gal. 2:1, etc., which was ordered by revelation. The visit referred to in Gal. 2 is undoubtedly identical with the one recorded in Acts 15:1, etc. How could Paul then omit this relief journey from his Galatian letter? Whether we can answer that or not, he did so omit it. To insist that such an omission would destroy his whole argument in Gal. one and two is answered by the simple fact that Paul did not think so.

But perhaps Paul omitted mention of this relief visit in Galatians because he failed to meet any of the Twelve on this visit. That is possible. But that explanation only raises more questions.

A glance shows that 11:30 and 12:25 must be considered together: Barnabas and Saul are commissioned to bring relief to the brethren in Judea—on completing the relief Barnabas and Saul return from Jerusalem. But why does Luke interlard all that he records about Herod (12:1–23) between these two statements? The matter is simple. The famine and its relief occurred in the summer or the fall of 44 or in 45, hence after Herod’s death (12:23). But the prophecy of Agabus and the beginning of the gathering of funds occurred before this Herodian persecution. Now instead of telling his reader merely that the gathering of contributions for relief was undertaken in Antioch, then reporting about Herod, and finally adding that Barnabas and Saul were sent to convey the relief, Luke at once says that the relief was duly conveyed (11:30).

But in 13:1, etc., Barnabas and Saul are commissioned for their first great missionary journey. They were then back in Antioch; that is why their return is mentioned in the preceding verse, in 12:25.

We are sorry to note that Lightfoot draws such a wretched picture of the Twelve and also of Saul. He confuses the dates. Saul and Barnabas bring the relief in the midst of the Herodian terror, James is dead, Peter has fled, the Twelve have taken to cover, “every Christian of rank” has left the city. Saul and Barnabas steal into the city, hurriedly deposit the relief funds, and depart. Ramsay says correctly: “It was not men like that who carried Christianity over the empire within a few years.”

But Ramsay has his own story. Besides confusing 11:30 and 15:1, etc., he has Barnabas and Saul bring loads of provisions instead of money and has them in person attend to distributing these provisions to all the needy—in person in order to produce the greater effect of this charity as coming from Antioch; and all this took weeks, for Judea was included. To give the final touch to all this we are left to conclude that these weeks occurred during the Herodian persecution, and that the apostolic council met at the same time! When over a decade later Paul took up his great collection for famine relief in the Gentile churches he brought the money So Barnabas and Saul brought funds. They most likely went first of all to Jerusalem and from there turned in various directions into Judea and distributed this relief money. Then they returned to Antioch.

The apostles were busy in various fields. Herod had been dead for months.

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

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