CRITICAL REMARKS
Acts 11:1. The apostles.—Peter and John (Acts 8:14), with James (Acts 12:2), and possibly the rest of the Twelve. The brethren.—The body of disciples.
Acts 11:2. They that were of the circumcision.—In the first instance all the Judæan disciples who were Jews, afterwards a party in the Church who contended for circumcision as a term of Christian communion (Philippians 3:3; Colossians 4:11; Titus 1:10).
Acts 11:3. Didst eat with them.—See on Acts 10:28.
Acts 11:4. Rehearsed the matter from the beginning and expounded it by order.—Better, having begun, expounded the matter unto them in order.
Acts 11:5-10.—Peter’s account differs from Luke’s in only minor details. (See “Homiletical Analysis.”)
Acts 11:11.—Mentions that Cornelius’s ambassadors were three in number (Acts 10:19), and Acts 11:12 that Peter’s companions were six (Acts 10:33).
Acts 11:13.—Represents Cornelius as calling his mysterious visitor an angel, whereas Luke’s account makes the centurion speak of him as a man (Acts 10:30). The word men, an insertion from Acts 10:5, should be omitted.
Acts 11:14.—Adds an item of the angel’s message not before mentioned.
Acts 11:15.—The clausule as I began to speak contradicts not that in Luke’s account “while Peter yet spake” (Acts 10:44), but draws attention to the shortness of the interval which passed before the Holy Ghost descended. In the beginning = on the day of Pentecost, about ten years before: see on Acts 11:26.
Acts 11:17. Whether the antecedent to who believed πιστεύσασιν is us (A. and R.V., Bengel, Meyer), or them and us (Alford, Hackett), or them only (Plumptre), cannot be decided; but in each case the sense is the same.
Acts 11:18. Glorified God.—Correct if the reading is ἐδόξασαν (Westcott and Hort, R.V.); if ἐδόξαζον be preferred (A.V., Alford, Hackett), then the rendering should be kept glorifying God, a continuous act.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 11:1-18
Peter’s Report to the Church at Jerusalem; or, the Admission of the Gentiles vindicated
I. The serious indictment preferred against Peter.—
1. The occasion.
(1) The tidings that had reached the apostles and brethren in Judæa that the Gentiles also had received the word of God (Acts 11:1). So remarkable a phenomenon was not likely to remain unknown to the Church leaders in Jerusalem. Nor is it readily conceivable that tidings so glorious should have given rise to dissatisfaction in any right-thinking bosom. Yet such actually appears to have been the case.
(2) The return of Peter to the metropolis, which was dictated not by any peremptory summons issued to him by his colleagues to defend before them the action he had taken—an assertion destitute of even the slightest evidence—but by a natural desire to explain what had taken place and his relation thereto (Acts 11:2).
2. The movers. “They that were of the circumcision”—i.e., the Jewish Christians as distinguished from the Gentile (see Acts 10:45)—the party in general and not an inner circle of them more zealous for the rite than their fellows (Lechler). Such a party afterwards arose (Colossians 4:11; Titus 1:10); here its first indications are observed. At this stage the whole Jerusalem Church, being composed of Jews, felt disposed to emphasise the importance and obligation of circumcision.
3. The gravamen. Not that the apostle had preached the gospel to the Gentiles—which, in face of Christ’s command, could hardly have been pronounced a fault (Matthew 27:19)—or that he had baptised them, and so received them into the Christian Church, but that he had done so without subjecting them to circumcision. As yet the apostles and brethren do not so express their thoughts, but merely charge Peter with having violated (traditional) Mosaism by entering into friendly intercourse, and holding house and table fellowship with the Gentiles (Acts 11:3).
II. The triumphant vindication offered by Peter.—
1. The frankness with which it was given. Not standing upon his dignity as chief among the apostles (primus inter pares), or resenting their interference with what was so unmistakably a work of God, but recognising their right to have their difficulties stated and, if possible, removed, doubtless also appreciating their perplexity concerning what conflicted so strangely with their traditional beliefs, Peter began and expounded the matter in order to them. A Christian of the right spirit—whether a public official or a private member in the Church—will not fail to exhibit the like anxiety, by means of a frank explanation, to remove any offence or stumbling block which his personal behaviour may have placed in the way of his weaker brethren (Romans 14:15).
2. The fulness with which it was given. The main particulars of the story were related.
(1) The vision he had himself beheld in Joppa (5–10), his own account differing from Luke’s only in minor details, such as the omission of all mention of the time when the vision occurred and of the hunger which preceded it, saying nothing about seeing heaven opened, and adding that the sheet appeared to come even unto him, and that it contained “wild beasts” (Acts 11:6) as well as other animals.
(2) The arrival of Cornelius’s messengers, though he did not at all mention the centurion’s name, or at that stage in his tale allude to the vision which had prompted the centurion to despatch his embassy (Acts 11:11).
(3) The inward whispering of the Spirit which had directed him to accompany the strange men from Cæsarea (Acts 11:12), which prompting he obeyed, taking with him six brethren who were then present, having apparently come up to Jerusalem along with him, and to whom he may be pictured as having pointed—“these six brethren also accompanied me.”
(4) The account Cornelius gave of the angel’s appearance in his house with instructions to send men to Joppa for him, Simon, whose surname was Peter, who, the angel said, should tell him words whereby he and all his house should be saved (Acts 11:13-14).
(5) The descent of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius and his household almost immediately after he had commenced to speak (the interval between his beginning to preach and the Spirit’s coming down seemed so short), and in exactly the same fashion as it had done upon Jewish believers at Pentecost—i.e., with the same manifestations in the form of tongues (Acts 11:15).
(6) The impression the phenomenon had made upon himself. It caused him to remember the word of the Lord (see Acts 1:5) about the difference between John’s baptism with water and the Lord’s baptism with the Holy Ghost (Acts 11:16).
(7) The process of reasoning he then followed—which was that, if God had bestowed on them, the Gentiles, the same gift of the Holy Ghost as He had conferred on Jewish believers, it was manifest God had received them, the Gentiles, into His Church; and that being the case who was he, Peter, that he should withstand God and keep them out by withholding from them the rite of baptism, which was the sign of their being let in (Acts 11:17)?
3. The success with which it was given.
(1) The apostles and brethren held their peace. They could say nothing against it. It was as clearly the doing of God as the healing of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple had been (Acts 4:14).
(2) They glorified God, saying, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” What a pity they did not ever after remain in this mind!
Learn.—
1. That misunderstandings will arise among Christian brethren.
2. That all Christian believers are not equally enlightened, or equally free from prejudice, narrow-mindedness and bigotry.
3. That the best way to remove misunderstandings and overcome prejudices among Christians is to come together in friendly conference.
4. That the same story is seldom twice told in the same way and without variation in details.
5. That whom God admits into the Church none have a right to exclude.
Note A.—The historical credibility of Cornelius’s conversion has been objected to principally on the following grounds:
1. That it had no practical effect on the settlement of the Gentile question.
2. That Paul did not cite it as an argument in the Jerusalem council.
3. That in spite of the silence and glorification of God which followed Peter’s explanation (Acts 11:18) the Jerusalem Christians were not long in reasserting their old demand for the circumcision of non-Jewish believers (Acts 15:5).
4. That the council felt itself wholly undecided as to the position it ought to maintain on this question of the terms of communion for Gentile members.
5. That Peter’s subsequent behaviour at Antioch showed he had never really known of such a conversion as is here reported. (See Baur’s Life and Work of Paul, 1:81–92; Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 183–190; Holtzmann, Hand Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Erster Band, p. 366). But—
1. Cornelius’s conversion was distinctly referred to by Peter, if not by Paul, in his speech at the apostolic council (Acts 15:7), so that it cannot be truthfully affirmed. Cornelius’s conversion was wholly without effect in determining the Gentile question.
2. If Paul did not cite that conversion when addressing the council, he may have deemed it unnecessary to do so after Peter’s reference to the same event. Along with this it should be noted that as Paul’s address has not been reported, one cannot be certain that he made no allusion to Peter’s action in receiving Cornelius.
3. If circumcision for the Gentiles was again mooted in Jerusalem, that was not surprising considering it was the Pharisees who mooted it (Acts 15:5).
4. The allegation that the council did not know how to act upon the question is incorrect, since they answered the question to Paul’s satisfaction.
5. The wavering of Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2:12) only showed that he, like many another good man before and since, was inconsistent—not that he had not baptised Cornelius. Lesser difficulties—such as the number of visions connected with the story, the uselessness of sending Cornelius to Peter to hear about the gospel, when he could have learnt all he wanted to know from Philip, and the obvious inaccuracy of the statement (Acts 10:28), since how otherwise could a Gentile be transformed into a Jewish proselyte—scarcely require an answer. The notion that the Cornelius history is a free composition intended to legitimate Paul’s Gentile mission by showing that Peter had opened the door to the heathen before him contains this element of truth, that Peter’s action in baptising Cornelius without circumcision because the Holy Ghost had, on the same terms, granted the gift of tongues, proved that Paul’s procedure in the Gentile Churches was not unauthorised and self-invented, but had the highest possible sanction, that of the Holy Ghost and of Peter. The remainder of the Tübingen theory is an exploded delusion.
Note B.—The Theology of Peter, as set forth in the various addresses given by him in the Acts:—
1. In the Upper Room (Acts 1:15-22);
2. On the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36);
3. In Solomon’s Porch (Acts 3:12-26);
4. Before the Sanhedrim (Acts 4:8-12);
5. In the Christian Meeting (Acts 5:3-4; Acts 5:8-9);
6. Before the Sanhedrim (Acts 5:29-32);
7. In Samaria (Acts 8:20-23);
8. At Lydda (Acts 9:34);
9. At Joppa (Acts 9:40);
10. At Cæsarea (Acts 10:24-43).
I. Peter’s doctrine of God.—
1. The personality of God is everywhere assumed (Acts 1:24, Acts 2:29, Acts 3:13, etc.). His wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
2. The sovereignty of God, both in providence (Acts 2:23) and in grace (Acts 3:26), is fearlessly asserted.
3. The unity of the Godhead is everywhere clearly taught, as, for instance, when the term God is used absolutely (Acts 3:18, Acts 4:10, Acts 5:4, Acts 10:34, etc.).
4. The trinity of persons in the Godhead, if not distinctly expressed, is fairly implied in such passages as teach the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost.
II. Peter’s doctrine of Christ.—
1. His person.
(1) That Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical personage, a true man, a genuine partaker of flesh and blood humanity, and not a mere semblance thereof, as the later Docetæ taught, Peter presupposes throughout—taking for granted all the details of His earthly history as these have been recorded in the gospel records, if not mentioning His Incarnation implying it when affirming His divinity (see below), alluding to His baptism (Acts 10:38), His philanthropic ministry (Acts 10:38), His sinless character calling Him God’s holy and righteous One (Acts 3:14), affirming His crucifixion (Acts 2:23, Acts 10:39), His resurrection (Acts 2:23; Acts 2:31; Acts 3:15; Acts 5:40-41), and His ascension (Acts 2:33; Acts 3:21; Acts 5:31), and predicting His future coming as the Judge of quick and dead (Acts 10:42).
(2) That Peter regarded Jesus of Nazareth as a pre-existent Divine being, who had been sent and who had come into the world, may be reasonably inferred from such statements as these—“He is Lord of all” (Acts 10:36), “David saith concerning Him, I beheld the Lord always before my face” (Acts 2:25), and “The Lord saith unto my Lord” (Acts 2:34), since, even if they refer to the exalted Christ, it cannot be supposed that Christ could have been made a Divine being by the process of resurrection and exaltation if He had not been so before.
(3) That Peter considered this exalted Divine human personality as the Messiah of Israel (Acts 2:36) and the Saviour of the world (Acts 3:25), is expressly stated.
2. His work. That Peter regarded Christ as Jehovah’s servant (Acts 3:13; Acts 3:26, Acts 4:27; Acts 4:30) who had been commissioned to perform upon the earth a work through which men might receive remission of sins (Acts 3:19; Acts 10:43), is hardly less apparent than that Peter connected that work with His death upon the cross (Acts 2:32; Acts 2:38; Acts 3:26; Acts 4:10-12; Acts 9:43).
III. Peter’s doctrine of the Spirit.—
1. The personality (Acts 5:3), and
2. The divinity (Acts 5:4), are unambiguously asserted.
IV. Peter’s doctrine of Providence.—Includes the following points:
1. The sovereignty of God in foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass (Acts 4:28).
2. The freedom of man in accomplishing his own will while all the time he executes the purpose of God (Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27).
3. The present and immediate knowledge of all that man thinks and does upon the earth (Acts 1:24; Acts 4:29).
4. The possibility of interposing, either naturally or supernaturally, in the course of mundane history (Acts 4:29).
V. Peter’s doctrine of sin.—On this momentous subject the Apostle taught:
1. That sin in its essence was disobedience to God (Acts 4:19; Acts 5:29).
2. That thoughts of the heart as well as overt actions or words were included in the category of sin (Acts 5:3; Acts 8:27).
3. That sin until it was forgiven held men’s souls in spiritual bondage (Acts 8:23).
4. That the sins of men might work out the purposes of God (Acts 2:23).
5. That sins of the most heinous character were pardonable through Christ’s blood (Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; Acts 8:22; Acts 10:43).
VI. Peter’s doctrine of salvation.—Contained these tenets:
1. That all men needed salvation, Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 2:39).
2. That this salvation was attainable only through Jesus Christ (Acts 3:12).
3. That the only condition of salvation was faith in Christ’s name (Acts 10:43).
VII. Peter’s doctrine of the last things.—This included—
1. A second advent of Jesus Christ to be preceded by times of refreshing, and ushering in the times of the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21).
2. A future resurrection for all men (Acts 4:2).
3. A solemn assize for quick and dead (Acts 10:42).
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Acts 11:2. Ecclesiastical Controversy.
I. Frequently arises concerning points of small moment.—About non essentials rather than about essentials, about external forms and ceremonies rather than about internal thoughts and dispositions, about the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin, rather than about the weightier matters of the law, judgment, and mercy, and faith (Matthew 23:23). Such was the case here. The contention which arose between the circumcision party and Peter was not about spiritual religion but only about bodily ritual, was not whether Cornelius had been converted, but whether he had been circumcised, was not whether Peter had received him into the Church without the exercise of faith, but whether Peter had dispensed with the corporeal mark of Mosaism. A small affair to make a noise about.
II. Is seldom settled without strife and angry feeling.—To the credit of the brethren and of Peter in this instance it was. Peter, by his frank and unvarnished recital of what he had done, and how he had been led to do it, cleared away the misconceptions and disarmed the suspicions of his brethren; they, on the other hand, by their amiable tempers and ready disposition to have their difficulties removed, contributed to a speedy settlement of what might have developed into a prolonged and bitter agitation, A pattern which might be profitably studied by disputants of all sorts.
III. Would be easily disposed of were both parties always anxious to find out and follow the mind of God.—It was thus the threatened rupture in Jerusalem was averted. Peter did not oppose his own authority to that of his brethren, or lecture them on their narrow-mindedness in seeking to impose their antiquated ceremonial on the Gentiles, or plume himself on his superior enlightenment in dispensing with the Mosaic rite, but simply assisted his brethren to see how God in His providence and by His grace had already decided the controversy. His brethren when they perceived this could no longer maintain their favourite views, but humbly and submissively accepted the verdict of heaven, feeling that when God interposed with a decision there was, and ought to be, an end of all controversy.
Acts 11:4. Expository Preaching. Should be like Peter’s discourse to his brethren.
I. Regular and systematic.—Going over the contents of revelation in order, so as to present Divine truth in its inherent connection, logical succession, and due proportion.
II. Clear and emphatic.—Showing that the speaker has an adequate grasp of his theme, is master of his own thoughts, and can express both with perspicuity and power.
III. Comprehensive and detailed.—Neither fragmentary nor trivial. Not leaving great lacunæ, or condescending to over-minute particulars; but presenting a broad view of the truth in all its parts, and with such parts as are more important set forth in prominence.
IV. Experimental and emotional.—Not discoursing on the contents of revelation as if these were mere objective truths which had no bearing on either speaker or hearer; but talking of them as if conscious of their vast importance for the inner life of both.
V. Personal and practical.—Aimed at the conviction as well as enlightenment of them that hear, at converting their hearts as well as gaining over their judgments.
Acts 11:9. Divine Warnings; or, “What God hath cleansed make not thou common.”
I. To men in general.—In particular to philosophers, scientists, statesmen, rulers—not to introduce distinctions of class, rank, wealth, power, etc., between man and man, seeing that God hath made all men of one blood, and therefore equal. The brotherhood of man stands to day in need of emphasis and exposition.
II. To the Church of Jesus Christ.—In particular to its office-bearers and spiritual leaders—not to make the household of faith narrower than Christ has made it, not to erect around it fences which Christ has not commanded, not to excommunicate those whom Christ has admitted, not to impose burdens on the consciences of men which Christ has not directed.
III. To the individual believer.—In particular to him who is conscious of being a child of God—not to defile with sin and guilt the heart and conscience which Christ by His blood and word has cleansed, not to let down to low and common levels the life which should be lived in the high and pure atmosphere of fellowship with God and Christ.
Acts 11:14. Words of Salvation. Words setting forth—
I. The nature and necessity of salvation.—
1. Its nature. Deliverance from the curse, power, and pollution of sin.
2. Its necessity. All are under condemnation, on account of sin, enthralled by the power of sin, and tainted by the moral pollution of sin.
II. The source and the means of salvation.—
1. The source. Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God.
2. The means. Faith in His blood, which signifies reliance on His propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world.
III. The recipients and subjects of salvation.—
1. Believers—i.e., such as by faith have put their trust in Him.
2. Their houses—i.e., on their complying with the same condition.
Acts 11:16. Remembering the Word of the Lord.
I. A much-neglected duty.—Not by the world alone, but also by the Lord’s people, who not only know and profess to believe that word, but who have themselves been saved by it, and have been commanded to keep it in remembrance (John 15:20; Colossians 3:16).
II. An exceedingly delightful exercise.—Not for the unbelieving and unspiritual, but for the religious and devout, to whom that word is more precious than thousands of silver and gold (Psalms 119:72), and who can truly say, “Thy testimonies also are my delight” (Psalms 119:24).
III. A highly profitable employment.—Were Christ’s words more frequently remembered, they would—
1. Save Christ’s people from falling into error and sin (Matthew 26:75; Mark 14:72; John 2:22).
2. Comfort them in seasons of despondency and trouble (Luke 24:8).
3. Stimulate them to works of faith and labours of love (Acts 20:35).
4. Secure for them answers to prayer (John 15:7).
5. Evidence the sincerity of their discipleship (John 8:31).
Acts 11:17. Who was I? or, the Impossibility of withstanding God.—Peter felt that he could not oppose the introduction of Cornelius on four grounds.
I. He was only a feeble creature, whereas God was the Almighty Creator, and therefore had a right to do according to the counsel of His own will (Daniel 4:35; Job 9:12; Isaiah 45:9; Romans 9:20; Ephesians 1:11).
II. He was only a commissioned servant, whereas God was the commissioning Sovereign, and was entitled to expect that His purpose should prevail over the wish of His ambassador.
III. He was only a recipient of grace, whereas God was the dispenser of grace, and possessed exclusively the right of saying on whom that grace should be bestowed.
IV. He was only a member of the Church, whereas God was the Church’s Head, and reserved to Himself alone the right of defining the terms on which admission to that Church might be secured.
Acts 11:18. Repentance unto Life.
I. Its nature.—A turning of the soul from self and sin towards Christ and holiness—implying a genuine heart renunciation of the soul’s old life of selfishness, worldliness, irreligion, immorality, and idolatry, and an equally sincere embracing of the new life of faith, godliness, obedience, and love, which is enjoined by Jesus Christ in the gospel.
II. Its origin.—Repentance unto life is a grace—i.e., a heavenly gift, such a quality and disposition of soul as can be inwrought by no natural process, but must be created by the action of the Holy Spirit.
III. Its necessity.—Required by all men equally, by Jews as well as Gentiles, and required in the same way as a free gift of grace. None exempt from its obligations.
IV. Its end.—Salvation and eternal life. Hence called a saving grace. Wherever it truly exists the soul is passed from condemnation and become an heir of glory.