SS Lesson Archive Week 4

Fairview Baptist Church
2040 Main Street WW - Ashland, Kentucky 41102
"Where Everybody Is Somebody and Jesus is Lord"

This Sunday School Study Guide is provided free of cost for personal study and as an aid for Sunday School teachers. It contains copyright material and may not be reproduced in any form for sale, without permission from the copyright holders.

3. What happened to him that set the stage for his encounter with Peter? (See vv. 3-6.)

4. Based on verse 9, what did Peter do that would later have a great impact on him?

10. How significant do you think Peter’s reply was to him? Why? (See Lev. 11:1-23; 20:25; Deut. 4:4-20.)

11. Do you think Peter was horrified at the prospect of eating what was on that sheet?

13. What was Peter told the second time (v. 15)? What does this command say to you?

14. Why do you think it was necessary for the Lord to command Peter a second (v. 15) and a third time (v. 16)?

15. How difficult is it to change cultural and religious traditions, values and beliefs? Why?

16. Is it really possible to say “no” and “Lord” in the same breath? Why? How do we say, “No, Lord!” when it comes to relating with people different from us?

17. How can we recognize we have ingrained beliefs about people? How can we begin to change those beliefs?

18. How can God change our attitude if we don’t, like Peter, take the time to be with Him, listen to Him, and respectfully ask our questions of Him?

19. Do you believe God’s commands will never contradict His Word, but they will often collide with our customs? Why, or why not?

20. What stereotypes might people make about us? Why should that stop us from making assumptions about others?

21. How might religion create some of the largest blind spots? How can we know whether God is challenging our assumptions or Satan is testing our convictions?

22. What are some changes in your assumptions you might be tempted to argue about a little bit with God? What might God say to you to conclude that argument?

4. Why do you think Peter would go off with the three men Cornelius had sent? (See verses 19-20.)

6. What might Peter likely have discovered as he traveled the 30 miles from Joppa to Caesarea with these three Gentiles?

8. What conflict did this situation create for Peter (v. 28a)? Why? (See Additional Commentary on verse 28.)

9. How is it obvious to you Peter paid attention to what God told him on the rooftop?

11. Have you had an experience when you discovered that someone who was different from you really wasn’t that different after all?

12. How did this experience affect you? Were you changed? If so, how? Have you shared this experience with others? If not, will you?

13. What are some things you can do to build relationships with people of other cultures?

14. On a scale of 1 (no problem) to 10 (nerve-racking), how far out of his comfort zone you think Peter was stepping?

15. Is it difficult for you to step out of your comfort zone to embrace change? Why, or why not?

16. What are some comfort zones we’re going to have to step out of if we’re going to love in a divided culture?

17. What might be our attitude and actions if we view our nation’s immigration challenges as only a political issue?

18. What will be our attitude and actions if we view those challenges as ministry opportunities?

1. What took place between verses 29 and 34? What did Cornelius relate to Peter in these verses?

5. Do you think it is difficult for many Christians to learn, as Peter did, to not twist God’s grace into thinking they alone are special to God? Why, or why not?

8. What is the implication of verse 36a? (See Ex. 19:6; Deut. 26:18-19; 2 Pet. 1:1-6,9.)

11. How does the “good news” relate to “peace through Jesus Christ” (v. 36)? (See Phil. 4:7.)

13. How might we unconsciously convey the attitude Jesus is really only for people like us?

16. What words and actions could we say and take that would wipe away generations of racial and religious prejudice?

17. Why does God challenge our assumptions and call us to change our behavior? What is our challenge since Jesus is Lord of all? How can we proclaim His message of peace in a divided culture?

Lesson Outline, Introduction, Discussion Questions, and Conclusion adapted from the following sources:

SOURCE: Bible Studies For Life: Life Ventures Leaders Guide; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234

SOURCE: The Herschel Hobbs Commentary; Family Bible Study; by Robert J. Dean; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; 1 LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

COMMENTARY:

NOTE: Commentary for all of the Background Passage Acts 10:1-48 is provided from “The Complete Biblical Commentary” for context and study. Also commentary for the Focal Passage is provided from “The New American Commentary.”

(Additional Commentary on verse 28 is from “Advanced Bible Study,” and “The Herschel Hobbs Commentary.)

I. Challenge Your Assumptions (Acts 10:9-15) Commentary

10:1. Acts now begins a sequence leading to an important turning point for the gospel. Though Jesus commissioned the apostles to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19), those who were scattered by the persecution after Stephen's death at first preached the gospel to Jews only (11:19). But God was already working in the hearts of Gentiles at Caesarea.

Caesarea, about 30 miles north of Joppa, was built by Herod the Great from 25 to 13 BC. It became the capital of Judea. Stationed there was a special band, or cohort, of soldiers known as the Italian cohort. (Usually a cohort had 600 foot soldiers under a tribune, but there is evidence that this was an auxiliary cohort of 1,000 men.) One of them, Cornelius, was a centurion commanding 100 infantry.

10:2. Like all the centurions mentioned in the New Testament, Cornelius was a good man, and like the one Jesus commended in Matthew 8:10, 11, he was also a man of faith.

Some Gentiles in those days were tired of the foolishness and immorality of the religions of Rome and Greece. Many, including Cornelius, found something better in the teaching of the synagogues and accepted the truth of the one true God who is holy, righteous, and good.

Luke called Cornelius "devout." In other words, he was right in his attitudes toward both God and man and by grace was living a godly life. He also feared (that is, reverenced and worshiped) God, as did his entire household (including both his family and his servants). But they had not become full proselytes or converts to Judaism.

Cornelius, however, was generous in charitable giving and prayed to God always (literally, "through all", that is, daily, and in every circumstance of his life and work). In other words, he really trusted the Lord to guide him in all things. From 10:37 it is also quite evident that Cornelius knew the gospel. He had not only heard about Jesus, he knew about His resurrection and the promise of the Holy Spirit.

10:3. Without a doubt God saw the desire of Cornelius' heart. About 3 o'clock in the afternoon, the Jewish hour of evening prayer, he was fasting and praying. In the temple at Jerusalem, the evening sacrifice was being offered by the priest at about this same time each day. Therefore, praying at this very hour was quite significant; it was almost a way of participating in the priest's offering. (Cf. Psalm 141:2, "Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.") (See 10:30.) Suddenly an angel appeared to him in a vision ("something seen"), that is, in an actual appearance or revelation, openly in full daylight.

10:4. As Cornelius directed his gaze on the angel, he became afraid (full of awe, fear, or even something akin to terror). This was a natural reaction to the supernatural by a man who had never before experienced anything supernatural. But in spite of his fear, he asked, "What is it, Lord?" thus taking the angel to be a divine manifestation. The angel, however, directed his attention to God. Cornelius' prayers and charitable giving had gone up (ascended) as a memorial (reminder, or better, a remembrance offering, which is the meaning in the Old Testament) to God.

10:5. The angel did not give any further explanation to Cornelius. He did not tell him what God had in store for him. Neither did he give him any additional teaching to help him. God has not given angels the responsibility to spread the gospel or teach and train the believers. He has given that responsibility to the members of His Body, the Church. Actually, the Church needed to learn some lessons here, and so did the apostles. What Peter was about to learn would help him as much as it would help Cornelius.

The angel directed Cornelius to send men (of his own choosing) to Joppa to summon Simon who was given the (additional) name of Peter. Simon (the Hebrew Simeon or Symeon) means "hearing" in the sense of being obedient, and he was obedient to the call to follow Jesus. But Jesus gave him the additional name of Cephas (Aramaic, Kepha’, "a stone, a piece of rock"), which corresponds to the Greek petros, also meaning a stone or a piece of rock (John 1:35-42). Peter had not been much like a rock in his earlier days, but by the grace of God he had been changed into the strong leader he had now become. Peter would be the one to help Cornelius.

10:6. The angel then gave further directions. The messengers of Cornelius would find Peter being entertained as a guest by a certain Simon who was a tanner and whose house was by the shore of the (Mediterranean) Sea, that is, outside of the city of Joppa itself. This is now modern Jaffa.

The statement "This one will tell you what it is necessary to do," is found in the margin of one of the late manuscripts of the Greek New Testament (cursive or minuscule #69) and in the AD. 1592 edition of the Latin Vulgate of the Roman Catholic Church, but it is not found in any other ancient manuscripts of any importance. However, it does fit the context and explains why Cornelius should send for Peter.

10:7. As soon as the angel left, Cornelius called two of his household slaves to himself. As verse 2 indicates, these were Godfearers who had accepted the truth about the one true God and were worshiping Him. Cornelius also summoned a devout, loyal soldier.

Devout means godly, Godfearing, and reverent. So this soldier must have listened to God's Word in the synagogue and joined in the prayers. He too must have heard about Jesus, His teachings, His ministry, His miracles, His death, and His resurrection. This soldier was also closely attached to Cornelius and must have talked and prayed with him, so Cornelius knew him very well and felt he could trust him to go along with this mission to summon Peter and bring him to Caesarea.

These men were in the military service of Rome as a career. They were part of the Empire's attempt to maintain what was called the "Roman peace," a peace that enabled the gospel to spread more rapidly than it otherwise could have in those days. But the believers were seeking a better peace than Rome could give.

10:8. Cornelius did more than give a command to his servants and this soldier. He, in fact, did not treat them as servants, but as friends, and explained in detail what the angel had said. Cornelius had received an assurance from God that He had heard his prayers, and he wanted all God had for him. He was also sure that what God had for him was good, so these servants and his soldier would want what God had to offer as well. Then Cornelius sent the three men to Joppa.

10:9. The next day about the sixth hour (about noon) the three men sent by Cornelius were nearing Joppa. But at this point the Bible's attention shifts to Peter. God is always faithful to work on "both ends of the line," and it was time now to prepare Peter to go with these men to Caesarea to the house of Cornelius.

At that very time Peter went up to the flat roof of Simon's house by an outside stairway with the purpose of spending some time alone in prayer.

Most Jews considered noon one of the hours of prayer. As the psalmist David said, "Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice" (Psalm 55:17).

10:10. Apparently Peter prayed for a time, then he became very hungry and wanted to eat. His heart was open to the Lord, and undoubtedly it was the Lord who put this unusual hunger upon him to prepare him for the revelation God was about to give him.

While Peter remained on the roof enjoying the cool breezes off the Mediterranean and waiting for them to prepare the food, he "fell into a trance." This does not mean a trance in the modern sense of the word, however, nor does it imply a hypnotic or unconscious state. The Greek says an ekstasis came over him. This simply means his mind was distracted from whatever he was thinking about as he sensed something important was about to happen. It was a consciousness of the presence of the supernatural, a feeling akin to astonishment or amazement. God was about to do something special.

10:11. Then Peter saw a sight that must have really filled him with amazement. He saw heaven opening, and a kind of vessel, or container like an enormous sheet or sailcloth tied at the corners, was descending to him as it was let down to the earth.

Seeing the heavens opened is a reminder of Jacob's dream at Bethel where he saw the heavens opened, and the Lord appeared to him (Genesis 28:12-16). It meant God was accessible and He had a message for Jacob. God had a message for Peter, but He gave it in a way quite different from when He sent the angel to Cornelius. The angel was an objective, real appearance. But this experience of Peter was a vision dealing with symbolic things, a dream-type vision, though Peter was fully awake and saw it with his eyes.

10:12. The sheet, or sailcloth, was filled with all kinds of quadrupeds, wild animals, reptiles of the earth, and birds of the air. The implication is that they did not include the domesticated animals that were considered clean by the law of Moses and therefore suitable for sacrifice and for eating. Furthermore, all these animals and birds were mixed together. They did not have any of the separation required by the Law.

Many of the prohibitions of the Mosaic law were included by God so that there might be a distinction between and even a separation of the Jews from the heathen around them. As one reads Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, several if not most of the dietary restrictions seem to be included for just this reason; there seems to be nothing intrinsically harmful about consuming the various foods that were prohibited. In fact, Genesis 9:3 states that God gave Noah "every moving thing that liveth" for food. However, he commanded Noah not to eat meat with the blood still in it (verse 4). This vision was telling Peter that the distinction between Jew and Gentile was abolished at the Cross.

10:13. While Peter was observing the contents of the sheet, a voice came to him and commanded him to rise up, kill (these animals and birds), and eat them.

10:14. Peter's response shows he was spiritually sensitive enough to know this was the voice of the Lord. But his life-style of strict obedience to the Law overcame his normal desire to obey the Lord. So he replied very emphatically, "Not so (not at all, certainly not, never), Lord." He had never eaten anything common (unsanctified, dirty) or unclean (nonkosher). Peter had made some progress. He had accepted the Lord's work in saving the Samaritans. But they were circumcised and kept the forms of the Law about as well as many of the Jews did.

Peter had not faced the biggest barrier, however. Many laws and customs separated the Jews from the Gentiles, especially the dietary laws. They realized these laws were for their good. Actually, Jesus had already prepared His disciples for the abolishing of these food laws by His discussion of what really defiles a man. He made it clear that the true source of spiritual defilement is from within. External washings cannot get rid of the unclean thoughts, greed, malice, pride, and spiritual ignorance that can fill the heart and become the root of all sorts of evil (Mark 7:15-23).

10:15. Peter's reply was a contradiction. He called Jesus "Lord," yet refused to do what Jesus asked him to do. It was a human reaction, the same kind that still keeps many people from making a forward move with God. Therefore the voice (of the Lord Jesus) gave an even more emphatic reply, "What God has cleansed, don't you regard as common (unclean)." The negative used here by Jesus is indeed very emphatic.

It is best to be generally conservative, for not every proposed change is of God. On the other hand, a hidebound conservatism can be harmful, if it hinders bringing a wider dissemination of the gospel.

Peter’s Witness to a Gentile God-Fearer Chapter 10 marks a high point in the church’s expanding mission. God led Peter to witness to the Gentile Cornelius. Through that experience Peter became fully convinced of God’s purposes to reach all peoples and hence became one of the greatest advocates of the mission to the Gentiles. The Hellenists had been the leaders in this outreach, Philip having evangelized Samaria and having baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. The latter incident in many ways parallels that of Peter and Cornelius. Like Cornelius, the eunuch seems to have been both a “God-fearer” and a Gentile. The significant new development in chap. 10 is that Peter became committed to the Gentile mission. His testimony would be instrumental in leading the mother church in Jerusalem to endorse the Gentile mission and thus lend it legitimacy and continuity with the ministry of the apostles

⁹About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. ¹⁰He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. ¹¹He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. ¹²It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. ¹³Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” ¹⁴“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” ¹⁵The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” ¹⁶This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

10:9 Joppa was about thirty miles to the south of Caesarea. Having set out the same day as Cornelius’s vision or early the next morning, the attendants approached Joppa about noon the next day. Peter in the meantime had gone up to the flat roof of Simon’s house in order to pray. Hungry and waiting for a meal to be prepared, he fell into a trance.

10:10–16 Noon was not a usual weekday meal time. The custom was to have a light midmorning meal and a more substantial repast in the late afternoon. If Peter had missed his midmorning breakfast, it would explain his drowsiness all the more. Roofs were often covered with awnings. Perhaps that or the glimpse of a distant sail at sea provided the vehicle for the vision Peter had. He saw a large vessel or container like a large sheet descending from heaven, held by its four corners. Some interpreters suggest a symbolic meaning here, the four corners representing the ends of the earth in a vision, the ultimate meaning of which points to the worldwide mission. The sheet contained representatives of all the animals of the earth—four-footed animals, reptiles of the land, and birds of the air. It thus symbolized the entire animal world and included clean as well as unclean animals. A voice from heaven commanded Peter to rise, kill from among the animals, and satisfy his hunger. Peter was perplexed by the vision and protested vigorously. What the voice requested was strictly against the law. Never had he eaten anything defiled and unclean. The voice ignored his protest, reissuing the command and adding, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” The command came three times; each time Peter objected and fell into further confusion.

Some scholars feel that Peter’s vision dealt more with food laws than with interaction with Gentiles. This is to overlook the fact that the two are inextricably related. In Lev 20:24b–26 the laws of clean and unclean are linked precisely to Israel’s separation from the rest of the nations. The Jewish food laws presented a real problem for Jewish Christians in the outreach to the Gentiles. One simply could not dine in a Gentile’s home without inevitably transgressing those laws either by the consumption of unclean flesh or of flesh that had not been prepared in a kosher, i.e., ritually proper, fashion (cf. Acts 15:20). Jesus dealt with the problem of clean and unclean, insisting that external things like foods did not defile a person but the internals of heart and speech and thought render one truly unclean (Mark 7:14–23). In Mark 7:19b Mark added the parenthetical comment that Jesus’ saying ultimately declared all foods clean. This was precisely the point of Peter’s vision: God declared the unclean to be clean. In Mark 7 Jesus’ teaching on clean/unclean was immediately followed by his ministry to a Gentile woman (7:24–30), just as Peter’s vision regarding clean and unclean foods was followed by his witness to a Gentile. It is simply not possible to fully accept someone with whom you are unwilling to share in the intimacy of table fellowship. The early church had to solve the problem of kosher food laws in order to launch a mission to the Gentiles. Purity distinctions and human discrimination are of a single piece.

SOURCE: The New American Commentary Volume 26; Acts; John B. Polhill; Broadman Press; Nashville, Tennessee.

II. Change Your Behavior (Acts 10:22-23,28-29a) Commentary

10:16. For further emphasis, the command to kill and eat was given three times. A lifetime of careful obedience to the Law is not easy to set aside. But the Lord made the command so emphatic that Peter had to give attention to it.

10:17. Peter had enough discernment to understand this vision was symbolic. The fact that he "doubted" means that it was difficult to understand what the vision meant.

Peter's reaction was not unusual. Visions are sometimes open to more than one interpretation. Peter wanted to be sure he discovered the right one. But he did not find the meaning of this vision by weighing the possibilities in his mind. Rather, he was going to be asked to take a step of faith and obedience in response to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

God did not let Peter speculate for long. The men sent by Cornelius had already asked the way to Simon's house and were standing at the gate. Once again, it is clear how exact God's timing is in all of His dealings. This was a very critical time in the history of the Church, but God was in control.

10:18. The three men at Simon's gate were inquiring if Simon who was also called Peter was staying as a guest there. The people in the house were busy preparing the meal, and Peter was lost in his thoughts about what the vision might mean. Fortunately, the men were persistent and did not give up or go away.

10:19. Peter was still thinking about the vision, pondering over it, weighing this and that possible interpretation in his mind. He was still trying to understand it by his own reasonings, probably not willing to admit to himself that the unclean animals and birds might represent people who needed the gospel.

So the Holy Spirit interrupted his thoughts and told him to pay attention, for three men were looking for him. Thus, in spite of his background in Judaism, Peter was sensitive enough to the Holy Spirit to recognize His voice (His inner voice) and be open to His leading.

10:20. The Holy Spirit then commanded Peter to get up, go down (the outside stairway) from the flat roof, and go with these men. (Outside stairways made of stone may be seen in the ruins of Biblical cities excavated by archaeologists in Palestine.)

The Holy Spirit further commanded that Peter must go with the three men doubting nothing, that is, without any hesitation. (Doubt in this verse translates a different Greek word diakrinomenos from the one used in verse 17 diēporei. The word used in verse 20 implies being at odds with oneself, wavering, and therefore hesitating to obey, in fact, hesitating to do anything at all. The verb in verse 17 emphasizes perplexity about meaning. In verse 20 the perplexity is about whether to take action.) It was important for Peter to meet these men and go with them. Peter must act and act immediately.

It was also important for Peter to meet them and to realize the Holy Spirit had sent them. When the angel gave directions to Cornelius, the Holy Spirit also moved Cornelius to summon and send these three men. The Holy Spirit moved also on their hearts to encourage them to obey with all diligence. Thus, the Holy Spirit was the One who really sent them.

10:21. This was enough for Peter. Casting all doubts, perplexities, and indecision aside, he rose up in obedience to the voice of the Holy Spirit and went down to the men who were sent to him from Cornelius. He told them he was the person they were looking for, and he politely asked the reason for their coming. Courtesy is an important aspect of the love of Christ.

Even though Peter already had the Spirit's command to go with these men, he did not thrust himself upon them, nor did he immediately reveal to them what the Holy Spirit had told him. Instead, he gave them opportunity to explain their mission. It would be good for their spiritual experience for them to give their testimony of what God had done.

10:22. The men then explained, first by drawing attention to the character of Cornelius, the centurion who had sent them. Their first emphasis was on the fact that he was a just man. That is, he was upright, righteous, law-abiding, not only conforming to the laws of the land, but also recognizing the sovereignty of God and keeping a right relationship to Him by trying to live a life that would be pleasing to Him. It also implies honesty, goodness, and even mercy. Cornelius must have been a wonderful person to work for and a wonderful officer to serve under.

His uprightness was the result of his being a fearer of (the one true) God. He had turned his back on all the whole pantheon of Roman gods, goddesses, and semi-divine heroes of their mythology. All those things which were part of his religious background and upbringing in heathenism were now behind him. He no longer believed any of that mythology or followed any of the forms and ceremonies of Roman worship. He had committed himself to worship the true God who had revealed himself in the sacred writings of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, inspired by the Spirit. As a God-fearer, he continually showed reverence and respect for God, and faithfully worshiped Him.

As a result of this, he had a good testimony borne to him by the whole of "the nation of the Jews." He was not only a man of good reputation among them, he was a man whose merit was well-attested and well-known so they approved of and spoke well of him. This implies he had been a member of Rome's occupation force in Palestine for a long time, probably for many years. Though he was now stationed in Caesarea, he may have been assigned previously to other places in Judea and Galilee as well. It is evident also that he had given generously to the needs of the poor among the Jews wherever he went. He had become well-known among the Jewish people.

The men then explained how Cornelius had been given a divine revelation through a holy angel to summon Peter to his house. The "angel of God" of verse 3 is here called a "holy angel," which shows he must have radiated some of the glory of God, just as the seraphim did in Isaiah chapter 6. This made Cornelius conscious that this angel was indeed a messenger from heaven. The angel further directed that they should hear words (Greek, rhēmata) from Peter, implying that they should also listen and obey these words of Christian teaching.

10:23. Though it was only a little after noon, they did not insist on starting back at once. Peter invited the three men into Simon the tanner's house, and Simon, at Peter's request, probably provided them hospitality for the night. Whatever reservations Peter initially had concerning the distinctions between clean and unclean foods were set aside. His encounter with the Lord had an immediate impact on his behavior, and likely, his attitudes and beliefs. As a Jew who had spent a lifetime trying to fulfill the requirements of the Law and the traditions of Judaism, Peter could have understandably been uncomfortable eating with and boarding these three Gentiles. Even though eating with Gentiles would have been strictly forbidden to him according to the customs of current Judaism, the text gives no indication that he was reluctant to receive these visitors. Apparently he quickly grasped the deeper truth portrayed in the vision.

The next day Peter went along with them. But he was careful to take six good, believing Jewish brothers from Joppa with him. (See 11:12.) He knew he would be called into question by other believers for entering a Gentile house, so he wanted witnesses he could depend on. Just to be sure, he took double the two or three required by the Law (Deuteronomy 19:15; compare Matthew 18:16).

10:24. The next day this company of 10 men arrived in Caesarea. They found Cornelius waiting for them with a house full of people. He not only believed the Lord was looking with favor on him, as the angel had said, he also believed this meant God wanted to bless him, for he had learned to know God as a good God. He had shared his material wealth with others. So he could not think of keeping to himself all of the blessing he expected God would bring him through Peter. He felt this too should be shared.

He was sure Peter would come. God would see to that as well. Therefore, he estimated the time of Peter's arrival and took it upon himself to call together all his relatives and close friends. He must have explained to them also about the angel's visit. He undoubtedly had already led them to a belief in the one true God and told them what he already knew about Jesus and the gospel. So they were all waiting with great expectation.

10:25. As Peter was coming into the house, Cornelius was very conscious that God had sent him. Therefore, as soon as he met Peter, he fell down at Peter's feet and worshiped. That is, he went down on his hands and knees before Peter, prostrating himself, and possibly even kissing his feet. This was the way the Persians bowed before their kings (whom they considered gods). The Greeks and Romans also did it before their gods. It was considered the way to show the highest reverence to them.

Some scholars believe Cornelius only meant to do this as a means of giving Peter a respectful welcome. But it is probably more likely that the excitement of actually seeing this man, whom the angel told him to summon, brought an emotional feeling in his heart and mind that caused him to react the way he was taught to react in his childhood and youth in Rome.

10:26. Peter was probably shocked to see Cornelius bowing before him. He knew the commandment that the Jews were not to bow down or worship any other god (Exodus 20:5). He knew that by the time of the Book of Esther, the Jews had learned the further lesson that they were not to bow down to any man either (see Esther 3:2-4).

Therefore, Peter took hold of Cornelius quickly and raised him up, telling him to stand up, and saying to him very emphatically, "I myself also am a man." The Greek here is anthrōpos, not a man in the sense of being a male, but man or mankind in the sense of being a human being. Thus he reproved Cornelius very gently, yet firmly. At the same time he did not belittle Cornelius. Peter did not want any exaltation for being used of God. Neither did he want anyone to give any human personality preeminence in the Church.

10:27. Peter then began to converse with Cornelius, and while doing so came into the room where all the relatives and close friends of Cornelius were gathered. The text implies Peter was surprised to see so many people.

10:28. Peter reminded the assembled crowd that it was unlawful for a Jew to keep company with or come to a foreigner (for fellowship or association). By saying it was unlawful, he was not referring primarily to the law of Moses. "Unlawful" here could be used of any act that showed a lawless spirit or an undisciplined desire or purpose to break the rules accepted by a particular group or society. A better way to put it might be that to a Jew it was not merely illegal but something abominable to join in closely with a foreigner. (The same word is used of Paul's attempting to join in with the disciples and become part of their fellowship at Jerusalem in 9:26.) Coming to these Gentiles also implies more than simply entering the house. It indicates an agreeing with them, acceding to or even giving consent to their heathen ways and desires.

But Peter was there, not because he was turning his back on Jewish ways and customs, but because God had showed him not to call any man (any human being) common (ordinary, profane, ceremonially impure) or unclean (defiled or defiling, and therefore cut off from coming into the presence of God).

10:29. Peter did not explain about his vision or how the Lord brought him to the conclusion that he must not call any person common or unclean. It was enough to remind them of the tremendous barrier of prejudice that the Jews had placed between themselves and the Gentiles. From this Cornelius and his friends would have to understand that it would have to be a revelation from God himself if that barrier was to be broken down. The fact that it was indeed broken down in Peter's experience was shown by his making no objections to their request, and by his coming to them immediately. He wanted their attention to be on what God was doing, not on himself.

Then Peter politely inquired about their reason for sending for him. He had heard this from the two slaves and the soldier Cornelius had sent. But he wanted to hear it from Cornelius himself. Thus he gave Cornelius an opportunity to express what God had told him and in this way to express his faith.

²²The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” ²³Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests. The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went along.

Two things in particular are emphasized—the devoutness of Cornelius and the leading of God. There is a slight advance over the original account of the vision in vv. 4–6. The messengers informed Peter that Cornelius was to “hear what you have to say” (v. 22). Peter began to see the ramifications of his vision. He was to witness to this centurion whom God had directed to him. That Peter was beginning to understand is exemplified by his inviting them to spend the evening as guests. Already he was beginning to have fellowship with Gentiles he formerly considered unclean.

²⁴The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. ²⁵As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. ²⁶But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.” ²⁷Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. ²⁸He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. ²⁹So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

10:24–26 Peter and the three messengers set out the next morning accompanied by several of the Jewish Christians from Joppa. According to Peter’s report in Jerusalem, there were six of the latter (11:12). After spending the night en route, they arrived at Caesarea on the fourth day from Cornelius’s original vision (cf. v. 30). Cornelius had invited a number of relatives and close friends to hear Peter, and they were all gathered at his home when the party from Joppa arrived. This would prove to be of considerable importance to subsequent events. The movement of the Spirit in Cornelius’s home would not be an isolated conversion but would involve a considerable number of Gentiles, what Luke called “house-hold” salvation (11:14). As Peter entered the house, Cornelius fell at his feet in a gesture of reverence and respect. Peter protested vigorously— even more in the Western text, which adds, “What are you doing?” to the Alexandrian reading, “I am only a man myself.” Compare the similar protest of Paul and Barnabas when the Gentiles at Lystra attempted to sacrifice to them as gods (Acts 14:14f.).

10:27–29 After a polite introductory conversation with Cornelius, Peter related the unusual circumstances of his coming. He did not tell of his vision but rather of the conclusion he had drawn from the experience. Everyone present needed to realize how unacceptable it was for a Jew to associate closely or even visit in the home of a person of another race. God, however, had shown Peter that he should not call another person common or unclean (v. 28). Actually, Peter’s vision had only related to unclean foods, but he had understood fully the symbolism of the creatures in the sheet. All were God’s creatures; all were declared clean. God had led him to Cornelius, and God had declared Cornelius clean. The old purity laws could no longer separate Jew from Gentile. Since God had shown himself no respecter of persons, neither could Peter be one anymore. Still, Peter had not realized the full implication of God’s sending him to Cornelius. He did not yet understand that God intended him to accept Cornelius as a Christian brother. So he asked Cornelius why he had sent for him. Cornelius responded by reiterating his vision (vv. 30–32).

SOURCE: The New American Commentary Volume 26; Acts; John B. Polhill; Broadman Press; Nashville, Tennessee.

Verse 28: The truth is that Peter’s actions were not forbidden, at least not by the law. The law called for the people of God to be holy and set apart, and it was the rabbis who gave this their own interpretation and taught that Hews should not have social involvement with Gentles. A certain degree of interaction was expected with Gentiles as far as business dealings, but even then the custom was to totally wash the defilement off themselves when they came home from the market. What Peter acknowledged as forbidden was something forbidden by social custom.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

Verse 28 is a key verse. It makes three points. First, Peter reminded them that by being there he was breaking the laws of his people. By first-century Jewish standards, any Jew who entered a Gentile’s house became unclean. Second, Peter spelled out what the law was: It is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation. This was the way the Pharisees interpreted the Old Testament laws of clean and unclean things. Anyone who was ceremonially unclean contaminated anyone who had close contact with the unclean person. The Jews, therefore, did not enter the house of a Gentile—and they certainly did not eat with them! Since most Gentiles did not follow the ritual laws of the Jews, the Jews assumed that all Gentiles were unclean. Third, and most important, is the lesson God had taught Peter: God hath shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

SOURCE: The Herschel Hobbs Commentary; Family Bible Study; by Robert J. Dean; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; 1 LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

III. Clarify that Jesus Is Lord of All (Acts 10:34-36) Commentary

10:30. In answer, Cornelius recounted how 4 days before (2 days before yesterday in their method of counting days) he was fasting and praying in his house until about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and suddenly he looked and a man in bright (shining) clothes stood before him.

Though the Bible called this one an angel (verse 3), Cornelius is giving his first impressions here. It is uncertain if the angel appeared to him in the form of a man, or if God opened his eyes in order that he might perceive a being which was spiritual, not physical by nature. (Cf. 2 Kings 6:16f., where Elisha asked God to open his servant's eyes so that he could see the spiritual forces which surrounded them.)

10:31. Angel means "messenger," and this young "man" in shining clothes bright with the glory of God had a message. Cornelius now recounted how his prayer had been heard (had been really and truly heard). His charitable giving had also been called to remembrance by God.

This does not mean God had ever forgotten or failed to take notice of either the prayers or the generosity of Cornelius. When the Bible talks about God remembering something or someone, it means God had that person or thing in mind all along, but now the time had come for God to do something specific about it.

God had been taking note of Cornelius and his godliness and his giving to the poor of God's people. In response God was about to bring the proper answer to his prayer.

The prayer here is speaking of one particular prayer, a prayer which must have been on the heart of Cornelius in the midst of all his praying. It undoubtedly involved a desire to have closer fellowship with God and with His people.

10:32. Cornelius next repeated the command to send for Simon Peter, drawing attention again to the specific details given by the angel of where to find him at the house of Simon the tanner (outside of Joppa) by the seaside.

At this point the majority of the Greek manuscripts have the phrase "who, coming (when he comes), will speak to you." Some of the oldest manuscripts leave it out, but it does fit the context, and it seems obvious that the reason for summoning Peter was to give him opportunity to tell them God's message.

The fact that the Book of Acts takes valuable space to repeat the details of the visit of the angel and the directions to send for Peter shows that God wanted to emphasize the fact that the gospel preached by Peter and the other apostles was and is from God.

This also shows that God prepares hearts to receive the gospel. From time to time there have been unusual revivals in the history of the Church that cannot be explained apart from a sovereign move of God. God has not changed His purpose that He revealed to Abraham so long ago. He still wants all the nations of the world to be blessed.

10:33. Cornelius then let Peter know he had not hesitated to obey the angel's command. Immediately (within the same hour), he sent for Peter. Now Peter had "done well" to come. However, Cornelius did not mean here that Peter had done a good thing by coming. The language used by Cornelius is idiomatic and really means they were pleased that Peter had come. Now all of them were gathered there in the presence of God, to hear from Peter everything God had instructed him to tell them. The Greek implies Peter would tell them truths established by God, and therefore fixed, unchangeable, dependable.

10:34. The phrase "opened his mouth," was used in New Testament times to introduce an important discourse. In fact, this sermon at the house of Cornelius was a landmark in the history of the Early Church for more than one reason. A number of scholars have drawn attention to the fact that there are important similarities between Peter's preaching here and the Gospel of Mark. Irenaeus, the pastor of the church at Lyons in Gaul wrote in the Second Century a.d. (as did Papias and others before him) that Mark was Peter's disciple and reported Peter's preaching about Christ in his Gospel. In other words, the Gospel of Mark embodies the essence of the teaching that Peter gave wherever he went, with Peter commissioned by Christ and Mark inspired by the Holy Spirit to write.

This sermon is important also because from the start Peter showed that he understood fully the meaning of his vision that was repeated three times on the rooftop. He saw that God truly is no respecter of persons; He does not show favoritism or partiality.

Actually, this was not a new truth. The Old Testament recognized this truth (2 Samuel 14:14, for example). But up to this time Peter had been able to apply it only to the Jews, not to Gentiles.

10:35. Now Peter understood that the barrier that had kept people away from the Lord was broken down by Christ. So Peter emphasized that the way to God is open to all. Anyone who fears (worships and gives reverence to) God and works righteousness (proving he has received divine grace by faith) is acceptable to Him.

God's impartiality was also taught in such passages as Deuteronomy 10:17 and 2 Chronicles 19:7. (See also Amos 9:7.) The New Testament emphasizes it even more in such passages as Romans 2:11, and 1 Peter 1:17. This does not mean God cannot make a choice, but rather that He does not base His choice on, or limit it to national, racial, social, or any other type of external differences. Therefore, these Gentiles, if they fulfilled the qualifications of worship, faith, and faithfulness, were just as acceptable to God as any Jew who worshiped God in spirit and in truth.

Peter now realized this in a new way. So did this houseful of Gentiles. Jewish exclusivism had kept them away from full fellowship. They had undoubtedly heard the Gentiles called dogs. But they probably had never heard any emphasis on the promise that in Abraham and his seed all the families (of all the nations) of the earth would be blessed, a promise that is repeated five times in the Book of Genesis (12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14).

10:36. Peter next reminded Cornelius and his friends of the word (the message, Greek, logon) God sent to Israel preaching (literally, telling) the good news (the gospel) of peace by (through) Jesus Christ. The content of the gospel, the central truth of the good news, is that God has made full provision for the believer's peace through Jesus Christ. That peace includes not only peace with God through the cleansing and forgiveness that comes through Christ's death on the cross, but also all of God's provisions and promises for the believer's entire well-being. Christ has put the "yes" and the "amen" ("truly") on them all (2 Corinthians 1:20).

10:37. Peter continued, reminding them of the "word" (the message [Greek, rhēma], used here as a synonym interchangeable with logos) they already knew. In fact, "you know" is emphatic in the Greek here. This means they already knew the facts about Jesus, about His life, death, and resurrection. Someone had given them the message.

It is one thing, however, to hear the facts of the gospel. It is quite another thing to receive the message as it is given by a Spirit-filled messenger of God. Peter repeated the well-known gospel story so the Spirit could apply it to the hearts and minds of the hearers. Peter made Christ the central part of his message and trusted the Holy Spirit to do the work.

10:38. Actually, the message is always Jesus himself. It is Jesus from Nazareth whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and mighty supernatural power. This anointing was in fulfillment of the prophecies of Isaiah 11:2 which speak of the sevenfold Spirit of the Lord resting upon Him: (1) the Spirit of the Lord, (2) of wisdom, (3) of understanding, (4) of counsel, (5) of might, (6) of knowledge, and (7) of the fear of the Lord. It also fulfilled Isaiah 61:1, 2, "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me," which Jesus declared was spoken of Him (Luke 4:18, 19).

This Jesus, said Peter, went about doing good (kind) deeds and healing all who were oppressed (overpowered or treated harshly) by the devil ("the slanderer," the chief slanderer of all), for God was with Him. God not only sent Jesus, He continued to be with Him in all His ministry so His miracles showed the goodness and kindness of God as well as God's power in every realm, thus giving proof that Jesus was and is indeed God's "Anointed One."

10:39. Next, Peter added, "We (meaning the apostles rather than the six believers from Joppa) are witnesses of all things which He did in the land of the Jews (Judea), and in Jerusalem." This emphasis on the apostolic witness is important. Jesus chose the Twelve to be the primary witnesses to the facts of the gospel.

Peter continued his message by pointing out this One who did nothing but good, the One who brought such blessing, healing and deliverance, the Jews killed and hung on a tree.

Hung here means crucified. It seems Peter used this word here rather than the ordinary word for "crucify" in order to emphasize the shamefulness of Christ's death. "Tree" basically means "wood," and the word was used to mean any object made of wood. It is translated "wood" in 1 Corinthians 3:12 and Revelation 18:12. It also translates the Hebrew word ‘ets, as, for example, when Galatians 3:13 refers to Deuteronomy 21:23. But ‘ets is a general word and is translated "wood" over 100 times in the Old Testament. Thus the "tree" here means the cross. The Romans sometimes crucified on an X-shaped cross, but the fact that the inscription was placed over Jesus' head shows that the usual form of the cross was used.

10:40. In contrast to what men did to Jesus, God raised (resurrected) Him on the third day. (Some see in this statement a reference to Hosea 6:2 since the apostle Paul spoke of Christ rising on the third day "according to the Scriptures." See 1 Corinthians 15:4, 20, 23.)

Then God permitted the risen Jesus to be manifest, to be visible, to be revealed. What God did was not something hidden, something mystical, or something merely spiritual.

The Gentiles who were listening to Peter had heard of Christ's resurrection, but they may also have heard the stories circulated by the Jewish leaders who said the disciples stole away the body of Jesus (Matthew 28:13). So Peter emphasized the reality of the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the reality of His appearances.

10:41. Peter added that these appearances were not made to all the people, but to witnesses chosen by God beforehand, namely to Peter and the others who ate and drank with Jesus (and thus enjoyed fellowship with Him around the table) after He arose from (out from among) the dead. This was concrete proof of the reality of Christ's resurrection body. He was not a spirit, not a ghost, not a figment of their imagination, but a very real Person who could give them genuine fellowship in this way.

It is also evident that Jesus did not intend to stay on the earth and teach the general public anymore. He gave His time after the Resurrection to opening the minds of His chosen witnesses to the Scriptures so they would be able to understand and proclaim the gospel after He ascended to His place at the Father's throne. (See Luke 24:25-27, 32, 44-49, noting that He caused the truth to burn in their hearts.)

Actually, 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 reports there was a sufficient number of witnesses. The resurrected Christ was seen by more than 500 believers at once (probably in Galilee), and most of them were still alive at the time Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He was seen also by His half-brother, James, and by all who were apostles, including Paul.

10:42. Peter then drew attention to the need for forgiveness in view of the coming judgment day.

Because of Christ's command, these chosen witnesses were proclaiming the good news to the people. (The Great Commission is found in all four Gospels as well as in Acts 1:8.) But Peter did not stop with speaking of the good news. He continued by showing the importance of accepting the good news. As witnesses to Christ's resurrection, the apostles were also under obligation to testify solemnly that Jesus was ordained (designated, appointed) as Judge of the living and the dead.

Peter did not mean the spiritually living and the spiritually dead. Rather, Jesus is and will be the Judge of all who have lived or whoever will live on earth. This bears out what Jesus said in John 5:22, "The Father judges no one, but has given (and continues and will continue to give) all judgment to the Son" (RSV).

10:43. The coming judgment need not frighten them, however. For Peter emphasized again the fact that the way is open to all, so no one need be excluded from the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection. But this time Peter drew attention, not to his own vision, but to the command of the Lord and the witness of the prophets to the written Word.

10:44. While Peter was still speaking these words (Greek, rhēmata, the plural of rhēma), there came a sudden unexpected interruption from heaven. The Holy Spirit fell on all those who were listening to the Word (Greek, logon). Notice here that what Peter spoke was referred to as rhēma, but what they heard, logos. Again it is clear that the two Greek words are used interchangeably.

The Holy Spirit is spoken of here as falling on them, using the same word found in 8:16 which says the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen upon those in Samaria who were saved under the preaching of Philip and were baptized in water by him. Thus, in the present context, "falling upon" speaks of receiving the Holy Spirit in a "baptism" for power (cf. 1:5, 8).

10:45. This outpouring of the Holy Spirit totally amazed the six Jewish believers who had come with Peter. In fact, they could hardly believe they were observing the Holy Spirit poured out on these Gentile Romans.

Luke referred to these six men as "they of the circumcision." Peter, of course, was circumcised, but his mind had been opened. But the Bible draws attention to the fact that these six men, even though believers in Christ, were still very conscious of who they were as heirs of the promise given to Abraham, a promise confirmed by a covenant whose outward sign was circumcision. They did not feel the importance of the part of the promise that spoke of blessing to all the nations of the earth, nor did they see themselves as opening the way for that promise to come to non-Jews. Even Peter's experience had not convinced them their prejudices were wrong, and the truth that God is no respecter of persons had not become as clear in their minds as it had in the mind of Peter. Thus, they did not really expect God to save these Gentiles and fill them with the Holy Spirit in the same way He had done for the Jewish believers.

"Poured out" is used to mean the same thing as "fell upon," and it shows that Peter and the six Jewish believers saw in this experience the same thing that happened on the Day of Pentecost (2:17, 33).

10:46. The fact that this whole crowd of Romans spoke with tongues (languages they had never learned) and magnified God also relates this outpouring to the outpouring on the Day of Pentecost (2:4). They magnified God as they kept on speaking in other tongues. (The Greek indicates continuous action for both the speaking in tongues and the magnifying or praising, extolling, exalting, and glorifying God.) Since there were not the people of various languages present as there were on the Day of Pentecost, this seems to mean their praise was addressed to God.

Peter apparently observed this for a time, and then he gave a response that was surely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

10:47. Peter saw that this kind of evidence was sufficient for the Church to accept these believers, so no one could forbid baptism in water. Peter recognized that these Gentiles were not only accepted by God but were also a part of the Church. The Holy Spirit was poured out on believers who were already identified as the Church and as the temple of the Holy Spirit in chapter 2. Thus, their experience was the same as that of the Jewish believers at Pentecost.

10:48. Peter did not hesitate any longer. He saw that these Gentile Romans had believed the Word while he was preaching, and were saved, born again from above. Then, while he was still preaching, the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon them. Later, in 15:8, Peter said, "God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us."

So Peter gave instructions, and they were all baptized in the name (that is, by the authority) of the Lord (Jesus Christ, as is stated in many ancient manuscripts). The authority of Jesus, of course, points back to the command in Matthew 28:19.

This baptism was a public declaration of their faith, a witness to the faith they already had, a witness to the faith that had already brought cleansing to their hearts (15:9).

After being baptized in water, the people asked Peter to remain with them a few days. Undoubtedly, they wanted more instruction in the truths of the gospel and desired to share spiritual fellowship with him, just as the 3,000 who were saved, baptized in water, and filled with the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost wanted to continue in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles (2:42).

³⁴Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism ³⁵but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. ³⁶You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

10:34–35 Peter’s sermon is somewhat unique among the speeches in Acts. Since it was addressed to Gentiles, one would expect it to differ somewhat from the other sermons of Peter, all of which were addressed to Jews. Still, it is quite different from Paul’s sermons addressed to the Gentiles of Lystra (14:15–18) and Athens (17:22–31).

Cornelius and his family already were worshipers of God and thus had some prior preparation for the gospel. Peter could have assumed such knowledge on their part and not have to start by first introducing the basic monotheistic message of faith in God as he did when preaching to pagan Gentiles. Peter’s sermon at Cornelius’s basically followed the pattern of his prior sermons to the Jews but with several significant differences. One is found at the very outset, where he stressed that God shows no favoritism, accepts people from every nation, and that Jesus is “Lord of all.” This emphasis on the universal gospel is particularly suited to a message to Gentiles. Peter’s vision had led him to this basic insight that God does not discriminate between persons, that there are no divisions between “clean” and “unclean” people from the divine perspective. The Greek word used for favoritism (v. 34) is constructed on a Hebrew idiom meaning to lift a face. Peter saw that God does not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnic background, looking up to some and down on others. But God does discriminate between those whose behavior is acceptable and those whose attitude is not acceptable. Those who reverence God and practice what is right are acceptable to him (v. 35; cf. Luke 8:21).

Peter was basing this statement specifically on Cornelius. Throughout the narrative his piety had been stressed—his constant prayers, his deeds of charity. This raises the problem of faith and works. Was God responding to Cornelius’s works, “rewarding” him, so to speak, by bringing Peter with the saving gospel and granting him his gift of the Spirit? One must be careful not to introduce Paul’s theology into a context that is not dealing with the same issues, but one should also note that even Paul was capable of describing the impartial justice of God as being based on one’s good or evil works (Rom 2:9–11). The early church fathers struggled with the question of faith and works in Cornelius, and perhaps Augustine’s view offers as good an answer as any. Cornelius, like Abraham, had shown himself to be a man of faith and trust in God. God was already working his grace in him, and it manifested itself in his good deeds. Now God would show him his greatest grace in the gospel of Jesus Christ and the gift of the Spirit. The stress on both Cornelius’s devoutness and his works is perhaps, then, a good corrective to an abused doctrine of grace with no implications for behavior and a reminder of James’s dictum that at base, faith and works are inseparable.

10:36 As with Peter’s other addresses in Acts, considerable stress is placed on God’s act in Jesus Christ. This theme is introduced in v. 36, where Peter stressed the good news of peace through Jesus Christ. There is an interesting interplay in the verse between the limited nature of the gospel’s beginnings and its unlimited scope. God sent the gospel message to his people, “the people of Israel.” But its content was peace, the peace Christ brings, who is “Lord of all.” If he is truly Lord of all, then the gospel and Christ’s peace are for all peoples, not just the people of Israel. Verse 36 echoes Isa 52:7; 57:19. In Eph 2:17 Paul employed the latter passage to argue the universal gospel and the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in Christ. Peter also had come to see that it is a natural corollary that there can be no barriers between those who profess Christ as “Lord of all.” He could not allow such nonessentials as particularistic Jewish food laws to separate him from Gentiles like Cornelius who were, like him, those for whom Christ died. Where Christ is Lord of all, a worldwide witness and a worldwide fellowship of believers free of all cultural prejudice are absolutely imperative.

SOURCE: The New American Commentary Volume 26; Acts; John B. Polhill; Broadman Press; Nashville, Tennessee.

“a visionary state” (v. 10): A vision denotes an appearance or a sight that appears to a person. Paul had several visions (Acts 16:9-10; 18:9) where someone appeared to him, and Jesus described His transfiguration and conversation with Moses and Elijah as “the vision” (Matt. 17:9). Cornelius had a vision in which an angel appeared to him (Acts 10:3), but Peter entered into a visionary state (v. 10). The Greek is the same word from which we derive our word ecstasy, and the Greek captures the idea of being amazed or bewildered. It describes a state in which ordinary consciousness is held back and the mind is opened to what God wants to reveal.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

Common and Unclean (v. 14): Common, or profane, stood in contrast to holy. In the Old Testament, common or “ordinary” bread contrasted with the “consecrated” bread of the Presence (1 Sam. 21:4-6). By the New Testament era, the idea of common also carried the undertone of unclean. The more general term, “common,” referred to whatever the Gentiles ate. “Unclean” described anything unholy or unacceptable to God. Eating unclean animals forbidden by the law caused that person to become unclean as well.

SOURCE: Life Ventures-Bible Studies for Life; Leader Guide; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

“common and ritually unclean” (v. 14): The Old Testament law designated certain things as unclean, meaning they were polluted or defiled. Initially, to identify something as common was not a bad thing. In the law, those things called common were done so simply to contrast them with those things that were holy. For example, the bread of the Presence that stayed in the tabernacle was called holy, whereas the bread everyone ate with their means was called common (1 Sam. 21:4). By the time of the early church, the word common carried the idea of unclean. If it was not holy or set apart for God, it was both “common and ritually unclean.”

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

COMMON: In the Old Testament, that which was common (alternately profane) was contrasted with that which was holy. Thus common bread was contrasted with the bread of the Presence (1 Sam. 21:4); the common journey was contrasted with the military campaign for which David and his men would need to be consecrated (1 Sam. 21:5). The common people (am ha arets, “people of the land”) were contrasted with rulers or people of standing in the community (Lev. 4:22, 27) and were buried in ce-meteries for the common people (2 Kings 23:6; Jer. 26:23). By New Testament times, the concept of “common” also carried with it the connotation of “unclean.” Thus Peter declares that he has never eaten anything “common or unclean.” The response to Peter was: “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (Acts 10:14-15).

SOURCE: Holman Bible Dictionary; General Editor, David S. Dockery; Holman Bible Publishers; Nashville, Tennessee.

טֻמְאָה, ṭum’āh, “uncleanness,” “defilement,” occurs 26 times (Lev 7:20, 21; 14:19; 15:3, 15, 26, 30, 31, etc.). נִדָּה, nı̄ddāh, “separation,” “impurity,” occurs in Lev 20:21; Ezr 9:11; Zec 13:1. עֶרְוָה, ‛erwāh, occurs in Dt 23:14. דָּבָר עֶרְוַת, ‛erwath dābhār, “unclean thing” (Dt 24:1) is translated “uncleanness” in the King James Version. The adjective טַמֵא, ṭamē’, “defiled,” “unclean,” occurs 72 times (over half in Leviticus), but is never translated “uncleanness,” but always “unclean.” The verb טָמֵא brev, ṭāmē’, “to make” or “declare unclean,” occurs often. Other Hebrew verbs “to defile” are גָּאַל, gā’al, חָלַל, ḥālal, חָנֵף, ḥānēph, טָנַף, ṭānaph, עָלַל, ‛ālal, עָנָה, ‛ānāh.

The law as to clean and unclean beasts is laid down in Lev 11:1-23. Notice that the law does not extend to vegetable foods, as does a similar law in the Egyptian religion. Four kinds of beasts are named as fit for food: (a) among quadrupeds, those that both chew the cud and part the hoof; (b) among fishes, only those having both fins and scales; (c) most birds or fowls, except, in the main, birds of prey and those noted for uncleanness of habits, are permitted; (d) of insects those that have legs above the feet to leap withal (e.g. the cricket, the grasshopper, etc.), but those that go on all four, or have many feet, or go upon the belly (e.g. worms, snakes, lizards, etc.), are forbidden.

(2) Uncleanness Connected with the Functions of Reproduction (Leviticus 12 and 15).

In Lev 15:2-18, we find the laws applied to issues of men; in 15:19 ff, to the issues of women. Not only is the man or woman unclean because of the issue, whether normal or abnormal, but the bed on which they lie, or whatever or whoever is touched by them while they are in this state, is unclean. The uncleanness lasts seven days from the cessation of the issue. To become clean men must wash their clothes and batheir bodies (though this requirement is not made of women), and both men and women must offer through the priest a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons (Lev 15). According to Lev 13, the woman who conceives and bears a child is unclean. This uncleanness lasts seven days if the child born is a male, but 14 days if the child is a female. However, there is a partial uncleanness of the mother that continues 40 days from the birth of a male, 80 days from the birth of a female, at the end of which period she is purified by offering a lamb and a young pigeon (or turtle-dove), or if too poor to offer a lamb she may substitute one of the birds for the lamb.

According to Lev 14 and 15, the leper was regarded as under the stroke of God, and so was deemed unclean. The leper (so adjudged by the priest) must separate himself from others, with torn clothes, disheveled hair, and crying with covered lips, “Unclean! Unclean!” That is, he was regarded as a dead man, and therefore unclean and so must live secluded from others.

According to Lev 15:24-40, anyone who touched a dead beast, whether unclean or clean, was rendered unclean. According to Nu 19:11-22, anyone touching the corpse of a human being is unclean. Likewise, everyone in the tent, or who enters the tent, where lies a dead man, is unclean seven days. Even the open vessels in the tent with a dead person are unclean seven days. Whoever, furthermore, touched a dead man’s bone or grave was unclean seven days. Purification, in all these cases of uncleanness as related to death, was secured by sprinkling the ashes of a red heifer with living water upon the unclean person, or object, on the 3rd and 7th days.

In Tobit 3:7-9; 6:13, 14; 7:11; 8:1-3; 1 Macc 1:41-53, and in other books, we find the same laws on uncleanness recognized by the descendants of Abraham. It was regarded as abominable to sacrifice other animals (swine for instance) than those prescribed by Yahweh. There is a growing sense in Israel during this period, that all customs and all conduct of the heathen are unclean. Witness the resistance of the loyal Jews to the demands of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 1; 2; 6; 7). The sense of ceremonial uncleanness was still a conspicuous element in the religious consciousness of the Jews in the inter-Biblical period. But the training of God in ceremonial purification and in the moral and spiritual teachings of the prophets had prepared the way for an advance in moral cleanness (both in thought and in practice).

By the days of Jesus the scribes and rabbis had wrought out a most cumbrous system of ceremonial uncleanness and purification. Nor did they claim that all their teachings on this subject were found in the Old Testament. This is fitly illustrated in the New Testament in the washing of hands. When the Mishna (the collection of rabbinic teachings) was produced, the largest book was devoted to the laws of purification, 30 chapters being used to describe the purification of vessels alone.

See Jn 2:1-11, and note how the Jews had six stone waterpots for purification at the wedding in Cana. See Jn 3:25 as to the controversy on purification between John’s disciples and the Jews. This question of cleanness and uncleanness was a tremendous issue with every Jew. He must keep himself ceremonially clean if he would be righteous and win the approval of God.

Jesus utterly disregarded for Himself these laws of purification, though He orders the cleansed leper to return to the priest and secure his certificate of cleansing. He did not wash His hands before eating, and His disciples followed His example. Therefore, the Pharisees challenged Him to give an account of His course and that of His disciples (Mt 15:3-20 = Mk 7:6-23). Jesus then enunciated the great principle that there is no ceremonial, but only moral and spiritual, uncleanness. Not what goes into a man from hands that touch unclean things defiles the man, but the things that come out of his heart, evil thoughts, hatred, adultery, murder, etc., these defile the man.

Paul likewise regarded nothing as unclean of itself (Rom 14:14, 20; Tit 1:15), yet no man should violate the scruples of his own conscience or that of his brother (and thus put a stumblingblock in his way). Love, not ceremonialism is the supreme law of the Christian. Paul, in submitting to the vow of purification in Jerusalem, set an example of this principle (Acts 21:26).

SOURCE: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia; James Orr, M.A., D. D., General Editor; Parsons Technology, Inc.; Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

D. Larry Gregg, Sr. is pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, Rutherfordton, North Carolina.

ROM THEIR EARLIEST RELIGIOUS and cultural consciousness the people of Israel had a unique sense of their separateness from other peoples and, for that matter, from the rest of the animate created order. Two factors seem to have contributed most significantly to this distinctive collective self-understanding. First, their belief that Yahweh was other than the natural order, and the origin of all existence, was summarized in the concept of holiness. For the ancient Israelite to say the God was holy was to say the Creator was utterly other than and separate from the created. Thus, God’s people understood Yahweh as being in stark distinction from other people’s divinities, gods the people envisioned as mere personifications of natural phenomena.

The second factor was rooted in the Israelites’ sense of collective divine election. They were a chosen people, and their abstinence from or participation in certain behaviors were the external signs of their unique covenant relationship with God. “For thou are an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing” (Deut. 14:2-3, KJV ). A further admonition tied together the notions of remaining a separate people and of practicing dietary purity with specific food-preparation instructions: “You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. You may give it to the alien who is in your town, so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you are a holy people to the Lord your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk” (v. 22, NASB ). Throughout their history, from the exodus through the history of Israel and Judah, and especially during the trauma of exile and return, this notion of Kashrut (ritual and dietary purity) became increasingly important.

Devotion to this conviction of otherness enabled the retention of the Israelite and Jewish religious and ethnic identity in the face of every temptation to allow themselves to be absorbed into the predominate cultures of successive eras (Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, and beyond). Unfortunately, by the first century AD, this concern for covenantal otherness had descended into an exclusiveness that presented a major obstacle to the early Christian proclamation of the “good news” of Jesus Christ. One writer has observed, “the strictures of kashruth make social intercourse between the practicing Jew and the outside world possible only on the basis of a one-sided relationship.”¹

Essentially the Jewish community said to the surrounding Gentile culture, “On a limited basis, you may enter our world by respecting our dietary and ritual cleanliness practices, but we can never enter your world because it is in a continual state of contamination.” Put more succinctly, the laws of Kashrut said, “You can be like us, but we can never be like you.” Simon Peter’s extended visit in the house of Simon the tanner at Joppa (Acts 9:43) and his subsequent acceptance of the invitation to go to the home of the Roman soldier Cornelius (Acts 10) boldly challenged the validity of this ancient assumption regarding any reciprocal relationship between ritual-dietary legalism on the one hand and identity with the divine redemptive purpose in human history on the other.

The strict Pharisaism of the first century AD insisted that certain vocations made their practitioners almost perpetually unclean even though those persons were life-long Jews (Lev. 11:39-40).² Simon’s house was near the sea, where he would dump the brine he used in the tanning process and the offal of deceased animals. His occupation required that he live apart from the larger Jewish community of Joppa because of his repeated contact with animal carcasses in the process of converting hides into leather. To interact socially with Simon in this condition would have made any Jew touching him ritually unclean as well.³ Thus Peter’s willingness to be Simon the tanner’s house guest signaled a major step in the direction of embracing with love all who responded in faith to Jesus’ inclusive “whosoever” (Luke 12:8; John 4:14).⁴

The story of centurion Cornelius is a further case in point. Though born a Gentile, Cornelius had become a “God-fearer,”⁵ meaning one who, though a non-Jew, participated in many Jewish observances, including dietary restrictions and synagogue attendance. Being a “God-fearer” meant, though, the person had not undergone ritual circumcision and become fully identified as a Jew. Peter’s vision of the animals descending upon the earth and his three-fold refusal to obey the command to “kill and eat” speak volumes regarding the struggle, both ancient and modern, to lay aside deeply-ingrained prejudices that keep others from have access to the redemptive power of God.

Jewish Law (the Torah ) in the first century AD expressed itself in two primary forms. The first and foundational was the sacred writings (Greek, hiera grammata; 2 Tim. 3:15), was written texts of documents ultimately associated with the Old Testament. Jesus characteristically referred to those documents as “the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12). The second expression of Torah was the oral law, or “the tradition of the elders” (15:2). Peter may have been quoting from a commonly known rabbinic oral injunction when he said to Cornelius and his companions, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come into one of another nation” (Acts 10:28, KJV). “To keep company” carried the notion of those with whom it was acceptable to dine. “It was largely because of their carelessness in food matters that Gentiles were ritually unsafe people for a pious Jew to meet socially.”⁶ In the mind and heart of the devout first-century Jew, the requirements of the oral tradition were as binding as those of the written.⁷ Only a person of courageous faith could turn aside from decades of cultural and religious teaching and conclude that “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34, KJV) and that “through his [Jesus’] name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (v. 43, KJV).

In a land and culture where food is usually in abundance, we have almost completely lost the sense of eating as an act of worship. Surely remnants of that consciousness remain in the Jewish observance of the Passover and the Christian observance of the Lord’s Supper. Remnants are also present in the notions of Sunday dinner, Thanksgiving feasts, and dining out in style on special occasions. Little remains, however, of the sense of sacred consumption that derives from a time when plenty was non-existent and starvation was always an imminent possibility. Those living in such a condition associated the deepest sense of religious reverence with the selection of only the very best to be offered in grateful sacrifice and then consumed in communal worship.

This was the world of Deuteronomy 15:19-23, which instructed the Hebrew people in the identification, preparation, and consumption of that archetypal sacred meal, the Passover, which is described in chapter 16. The unblemished sacrifice served both to render homage to a perfectly righteous God and to keep a chosen people who were in the process of being perfected reminded of their calling to be as holy as their human finitude would permit them to be. “And ye shall be holy unto me; for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine” (Lev. 20:26, KJV).

Unfortunately, first-century Jewish legalism concluded that “separateness” and “holiness” amounted to the same thing. They mistakenly assumed, therefore, that effectively segregating themselves from others automatically brought them closer to God. Contemporary Christians can make the same mistake. Some assume that eating so-called biblical diets or sequestering themselves in quasi-monastic enclaves will automatically make them holy. When the Pharisees objected to Jesus’ disciples’ failure to observe the laws of Kashrut related to hand washing and food consumption, Jesus responded, “There is nothing from without man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man” (Mark 7:15, KJV). Bi

1. Gene Schramm, “Meal Customs (Jewish)” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. in chief David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:650.

2. See Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 303-12.

3. Archibald Thomas Robertson, The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 3 in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), 132.

4. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 213, note 68.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Vol. 38, No. 2; Winter 2011-12.

R. Wayne Jones is Associate Executive Pastor of First Baptist Church, Franklin, Tennessee.

HE CONFLICT BETWEEN the Jewish and Gentile believers that so affected the early church can be understood only in light of the Jew’s understanding of their election as the people of God. The idea that God had called this people out of all other peoples of the world made every relationship with other peoples one of contrast, not comparison.

Two concepts of election swept Judaism. The first was that God had chosen the patriarchs because He loved them. In Deuteronomy we read: “It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love upon you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples; but it is because the Lord loves you, and is keeping the oath which he swore to your fathers” (Deut. 7:7-8, RSV).

The second concept was that God had given all nations the same possibility of becoming the people of God, but only Israel was willing to accept the Law and the other nations rejected this opportunity of their own free will. In other words, it was out of love for sin that the Gentiles rejected it.¹

This second understanding of election grew until it permeated the thought of first-century Judaism, but much of its foundation can be found in the early writings of the Old Testament. This view of election set the Jews against the Gentiles. Through the years their attitude toward Gentiles increasingly reflected racial and national hatred, and occasionally resulted in abuse of foreign people.

Not only had God elected the Jews, but also God had given them the law. The Torah became the central measuring stick for every issue in life. Through the law Israel could know how to live as an elect people. The instruction of the law and the interpretation of the law consisted of detailed obligations on the part of the Jews, not only in relationship to God but also to others. The Jews’ understanding of themselves as God’s chosen people led them to view the “nations,” the “heathen,” with suspicion and hostility.

This hostility stemmed from the strict requirements of what it meant to be clean and unclean. Cleanliness was required in order to worship God. To be clean before God meant physical as well as spiritual cleanness. To identify with the Gentiles always meant “uncleanness” among the Jews. The Gentiles had “their own gods, their loose ways, and stood for a way of life negating all that the Jews held dear.”² In the minds of the Jews the Gentiles were ignorant of life’s secrets, and one day the light of Yahweh would enlighten them. The Jews saw Gentiles as led by impulse, unreflective appetite, or mercenary motives. (Matt. 6:32-33; Luke 12:29-30; Matt. 8:34 [the Gergesenes]; 28:12-15).

Hellenic ways of thought were alien to the Jews. The Hellenic ways of thought were too individualistic. For the Hebrew, recognition and acceptance of one’s relationship to the tribe and the nation, that is, the community, were more important than individualism. This tension between individualistic thought and the importance of tribe and nation was considered empty-headed by the Jews.

The role of Antiochus Epiphanes IV (175-164 BC ) in attempting to make the Jews conform to Hellenistic thought and life-style perhaps created one of the greatest barriers created one of the greatest barriers between the Jews and the Gentiles of the New Testament. The Jews remembered the unbridled terrorism of Antiochus and his willingness to destroy anyone who would oppose his designs on Palestine. In 1 Maccabees 1:56-64, Antiochus’ reign of terror is tragically revealed:

The books of the law which they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. Where the book of the covenant was found in the possession of any one, or if any one adhered to the law, the decree of the king condemned him to death. They kept using violence against Israel, against those found month after month in the cities. And on the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice on the altar which was upon the altar of burnt offering. According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mother’s necks.

But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant and they did die. And very great wrath came upon Israel.³

This excessive terror ingrained in the Jewish people a deep hatred and resentment toward the Gentiles and their way of life. Since the father’s enemy was the son’s enemy and vice versa, hatred of the Gentiles was passed down from generation to generation. Not only to the time of Peter’s sermon in Acts 10, but also far beyond, the Jewish and Gentile conflict raged on.

Above all, the issue of circumcision stood as the greatest symbol of the vast difference between the Jews and the Gentiles. From the time of Abraham this symbol stood for a separation between the Jews and all others. The enforcement of circumcision on the Gentiles seemed to many Jews the only way that the Gentiles could ever hope to identify with the Jewish community. This attitude influenced the thinking of many of the Jewish leaders in the early church and became the litmus test for inviting Gentiles to become a part of the Christian church. Giving up this symbol was for many Jewish believers intolerable.

This article will now focus on the first steps that the early church took toward resolving the conflict between Jewish and Gentile believers. Only through Peter’s new understanding was he willing to allow entrance of Gentiles into the church (Acts 10:9-48). Peter’s culture had so obscured his vision that is was only after the third attempt that he really began to understand God’s vision in relationship to a sinful world.

Peter’s attempt to put aside the differences between the Jewish and Gentile Christians was meager at best. Even with all of his opportunities to follow Jesus and the examples of Stephen and Philip, Peter had a difficult time being open to the Gentiles. Peter’s words in Acts 10:34 may well mean, “I am catching on, that God is not one to show partiality.”

Only by the power of the Holy Spirit did a breakthrough take place in the early church. Peter indicated that there must be an openness to the God-fearers (Acts 10:35). The God-fearers were persons who had assumed much of the life-style of those who followed God (the Jews) without yet having become a proselyte. Proselytes were a special class of persons who were by no means incorporated into the body of Israelites rapidly and effectively. A convert to Judaism was considered to be inferior socially as well as economically.⁴

Peter’s attempt did, however, begin the process of breaking the hold of Judaism on Gentile believers. Even though others, like the Judaizers, attempted to place the Gentile Christians under the Jewish law, the Holy Spirit had broken through in Peter’s message in such a way that the early church could never be the same again. In Acts 10:45 we have evidence of this breakthrough as Luke reports: “And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also” (NASB).

The early church certainly took other steps later to resolve the Jewish-Gentile conflict (Acts 15), however those steps are beyond the limits of the focus of this article. Bi

1. Werner Foerster, From the Exile to Christ: A Historical Introduction to Palestinian Judaism, trans. Gordon E. Harris (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964), 189.

2. J. Duncan M. Derrett, Jesus’ Audience: The Social and Psychological Environment in Which He Worked (New York: The Seabury Press, 1973), 48.

3. The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, Revised Standard Version, (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1957), 191-192.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Summer, 1996.

Dr. Polhill is professor of New Testament interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.

“I

MOST CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND now that God is not one to show partiality” (Acts 10:34).¹ These words of Peter to the Gentile Cornelius had been a long time coming. One would think that the command of Jesus to be witnesses in all the earth (Acts 1:8) would have made Peter’s acceptance of Cornelius a foregone conclusion. Such was not the case. The apostles were slow to live out the vision of their Lord.

The partiality involved here was the Jewish attitude toward Gentiles, particularly the conviction that God was God of the Jews alone. The very term “Gentile” carries something of an ethnic bias. It is a translation of the Greek word ethnos, the root meaning being “nation” or “people.” It was the term used by Jews to distinguish themselves from all other races. All non-Jews were “Gentiles.” They belonged to the other peoples; they were foreigners. Two terms embraced all humanity, Jews and Gentiles, “us and them.”

The distinction between Jew and Gentile was racial and not linguistic or even national. Jews belonged to the Jewish race, the seed of Abraham. All those not of Jewish racial descent were Gentiles. There were many Jews in Peter’s day whose citizenship was not in Palestine and whose native tongue was not Hebrew. These were the Jews of the dispersion, and they lived in virtually every part of the Roman Empire. Christians witnessed to them from the very beginning. They were among the converts at Pentecost. By nationality they represented nearly every area of the Roman Empire (Acts 2:9-11). By race, they were Jews (Acts 2:5).

Likewise, a significant group in the early Jerusalem church were Greek-speaking Jews. Luke called them “Hellenists” (RSV). Stephen and Philip were representative of this group (Acts 6:1-6). They bore Greek names and their native tongue was Greek, but they were Jews by race. Like the converts at Pentecost, they were dispersion Jews, and the church included them from the start. The same could not be said for the Gentiles.

The mission to the Gentiles was a slow and sometimes painful development. To a large extent this was due to the mutually prejudicial attitudes which Jews and Gentiles held toward one another in the first century. In terms of the Jewish ceremonial law, Gentiles were “unclean.”

For the Jew, ritual purity was essential for worship and an acceptable relationship to God. Such purity involved avoiding certain unclean foods, avoiding contact with corpses, and undergoing elaborate purification for bodily secretions like the fluids associated with childbirth and seminal emissions.

Not sharing such views of ritual purity, Gentiles were from the Jewish perspective constantly in a state of uncleanness. Peter referred to this when he told Cornelius, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean” (Acts 10:28). Peter had transgressed the rabbinic laws of cleanness in merely entering Cornelius’ house. The Mishnah, the earliest written account of the rabbinic teachings, specifies that “the dwelling places of Gentiles are unclean” (Oholoth 18:7 [Mishnah] ).

It was particularly the Gentile carelessness about foods that made the Jew keep his distance lest he be unwittingly exposed to uncleanness.² Due to this, table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians was a perennial source of difficulty in the early church. Just recall Paul’s later conflict with Peter over this very matter (Gal. 2:11-12).

It was not that the Jews hade no interaction with Gentiles. Particularly among dispersion Jews there was an endeavor to convert Gentiles to Judaism. Such converts were known as “proselytes.” To become a proselyte, Gentiles were required to undergo extensive instruction in the law and to provide for a sacrifice in the Temple. Male converts were circumcised and, at least at a later date, all proselytes were ritually immersed.³ Such converts were considered fully Jewish in a religious sense. Since they agreed to live by all provisions of the Jewish law, including the purity regulations, they were considered ritually clean. There do not seem to have been great numbers of such proselytes.

There were, however, other Gentiles who were attracted to the Jewish faith in God and regularly attended the synagogues but who found the proselyte procedure of circumcision and living by the elaborate ritual provisions of the law too rigorous to seek full conversion to Judaism. Such believing Gentiles often are found in the Gospels and Acts and are described as “those who reverenced or fear God.” Hence, they usually are designated “God-fearers.” The Jews welcomed such God-fearing Gentiles to their synagogues, and the rabbis assured them that God would give them a place in the life to come.⁴

Cornelius was such a God-fearing Gentile, well-respected by the Jews for his prayers and generous contributions (Acts 10:2). Such God-fearers were a natural target group for the early Christian mission. Paul seems to have witnessed extensively to them.⁵ Already believers in God, the Christian message assured them of a complete conversion through Christ and of full membership in the people of God.

It can be seen readily that the question of the place of the Gentiles in their mission was a complex issue for the early Christians. Being themselves Jews and belonging to a religious movement arising totally on Jewish soil, there was widespread disagreement on how to approach the Gentiles or even whether they should be approached at all. The Christian group was a movement within Judaism, and it seemed logical to some that Gentiles should undergo Jewish proselyte procedure if they were to become Christians (Acts 15:1).

There was a related problem of table fellowship. If Gentiles were admitted to the fellowship without requiring them to live by the Jewish ritual law, how could Jewish Christians eat with them without themselves contracting ritual uncleanness? Perhaps the simplest course was to forget those unclean Gentiles altogether; there was ample opportunity for witness to the Jews alone. The story of Acts is to a great extent the story of the church struggling with these issues and of the final triumph of the mission to the Gentiles.

There was ample precedent for Peter’s witnessing to Cornelius. In fact, the incident bears striking similarities to the prophet Jonah’s experience with the Ninevites. As a member of the Italian cohort (Acts 10:1), Cornelius was a member of a military group from Italy comprised solely of Roman citizens.⁶ Jewish resentment toward the Roman imperial presence scarcely differed from their attitude toward the dominating Assyrian Empire of Jonah’s day, of which Nineveh was the capital city. Neither Peter nor Jonah took the initiative in witnessing to their enemies but had to be prodded by God’s direct intervention. Jonah fled to Joppa to escape God’s call. Peter’s call to Cornelius took place in Joppa.⁷ Both men learned from their experience that God does not consider any person “unholy or unclean” (Acts 10:28).

Peter’s direct forbear in the Gentile outreach was, of course, Jesus. Though Jesus never undertook a mission to the Gentiles Himself, He laid the groundwork in His ministry and teaching. He occasionally worked in regions outside Jewish territory, such as Tyre and the Decapolis (Mark 7:24,31). Though many Jews lived in these areas, it is possible that a number of those to whom He ministered were Gentiles.

Some were identified explicitly as such, like the Syrophoenician woman who sought His healing of her demon-possessed daughter (Mark 7:25-30). At first reading, one may be perplexed by Jesus referring to the Gentiles with the abusive Jewish epithet “dogs”: “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Mark 7:27). The point of the encounter was in fact the opposite. Jesus told the woman that His ministry must first be “to the children,” that is, to Israel. He used the word for dog which meant “household pet,” and implied that the Gentile feeding time only came after the children.⁸ The woman’s quick response that the pets gather the crumbs under the table received Jesus’ praise and a quick granting of her request (Mark 7:29). This story illustrates the larger pattern of Jesus’ ministry. He seems to have restricted it primarily to the Jews. Theirs was the heritage of faith in God, theirs the expectation of the coming messiah. They were the natural group with whom to lay the groundwork for the larger worldwide mission. The Gentiles were real part of that mission. Their feeding time would come.

Jesus reached out to other individual Gentiles in His ministry. When one thinks of Cornelius one is reminded of another centurion whose servant Jesus healed (Luke 7:2-10). Like the Syrophoenician woman, Jesus praised the centurion for his faith (v. 9). Such commendations were rare for Jesus. Perhaps it was not by accident that they were given to Gentiles.

It was perhaps also not by accident that the Samaritans were recipients of Jesus’ praise. One need only recall how the Samaritan was the good example in the parable known by that name (Luke 10:30-35) and how the Samaritan was the only one of the ten lepers to give the proper response of gratitude for Jesus’ healing them (Luke 17:11-19).

Jesus not only praised Samaritans, He carried on a major ministry among them (John 4:4-42). His outreach to them was striking because of the hostility Jews harbored against Samaritans. Although the historical roots of the Samaritans are not altogether clear, it is evident that they were closely related to the Jews, most likely deriving from the remnants of the Northern Kingdom who were left behind after the deportation of 722 BC.⁹ Their religion was close to that of the Jews, involving a monotheistic faith in God, a holy scripture closely resembling the Old Testament Pentateuch, and a hope in a coming prophetic messiah. Perhaps it was this very relatedness that bred Jewish contempt.

Not only did Jesus minister to foreigners but His teachings often alluded to their inclusion in God’s kingdom. This was often the point of His parables (see Matt. 21:43; Luke 13:29). In His discourse on the last times, He stressed the necessity of the Gentile mission (Mark 13:10). And, in His final words to his disciples, He urged them to witness to “all nations,” that is, “the Gentiles” (Matt. 28:19; Acts 1:8).

Peter had ample precedent in his witness to Cornelius. The amazing thing is that it was so long in coming. The earliest church in Jerusalem restricted its ministry to the Jews. The three thousand converts at Pentecost were all Jews (Acts 2:41), and the five thousand total membership mentioned in Acts 4:4 was exclusively Jewish.

One should recall, however, that many of the converts at Pentecost were dispersion Jews. The final breakthrough to the Gentile mission seems to have begun with this group, particularly with those who are described as “Hellenists” or Greek-speaking Jews in Acts. They first are mentioned in the account of the selection of seven of their number to supervise the Christian charity to the Greek-speaking widows (Acts 6:1-6). Among the seven were Stephen and Philip, who were instrumental in bringing about he mission to non-Jews. Stephen began by preaching in the Greek-speaking synagogues of Jerusalem, which resulted in his being taken before the Jewish Sanhedrin on charges of unorthodoxy (Acts 6:8-14). His lengthy defense before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:2-53) was a caustic critique of the Jewish religious exclusivism which restricted God to the Jewish people, to the Holy Land, and to the Temple. Stephen’s vision was one of a God for all peoples and nations. He was stoned to death for that vision and so was never able to undertake the mission to the nations himself (Acts. 7:54-60).

It was Stephen’s fellow Hellenist, Philip, who took up the vision and first carried the gospel to non-Jews. He began with that group of “half-Jews,” the Samaritans, following in the footsteps of Jesus in his outreach to those who were the target of so much Jewish hostility (Acts 8:5-13). He continued his witness to non-Jews by his conversation with the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26:39). The eunuch was almost certainly a Gentile. He had been to Jerusalem to worship (v. 27) which would indicate that he was either a Jewish proselyte or a God-fearer like Cornelius.

As Greek-speaking dispersion Jews, Barnabas and Paul belonged to the group of “Hellenist” Jewish Christians. It was with their mission to Cyprus, Pisidia, and Lycaonia that the mission to Gentiles came into full swing (Acts 13:1—14:28). They were sponsored by the Antioch church, which had itself been founded by Hellenist Jewish Christians and which already had begun witnessing to Gentile “Greeks” in its own city (Acts 11:19-21). The success of Paul and Barnabas in reaching large numbers of Gentiles prompted an inevitable reaction from the conservative Jewish Christians who felt that any Gentile convert to the faith should be circumcised and undergo full Jewish proselyte procedure (Acts 15:1-5).

It was Peter who came to Paul’s defense for accepting Gentiles into the Christian community without requiring that they become Jewish proselytes and live by all the Jewish customs (Acts 15:7-11). Peter’s experience with Cornelius had paved the way. God had shown him that no one is unclean in His sight. In this Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 the principle was agreed upon by all the church that Gentiles would be admitted to the faith without requiring them to become Jews. This definitive agreement paved the way for Paul’s success in winning the Gentiles in Asia, Greece, and eventually in Rome itself. The remainder of Acts is devoted to that story.

Acceptance of “foreigners” is never an easy thing, no more so for the early Christians than for Christians today. It was no accident that the real breakthrough in the early Christian outreach to Gentiles began with the Hellenists who, though racially Jewish, were “foreigners” in language and nationality. Coming themselves from a Gentile environment, they especially were sensitive to the fact that God is indeed no respecter of persons. Bi

2. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts, the New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 222.

3. Kirsopp Lake, “Proselytes and God-fearers,” The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 5. Additional Notes (London: MacMillan and Co., 1933), pp. 77-79.

5. At Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:16,26), at Thessalonica (Acts 17:4), in Athens (Acts 17:17). Lydia seems to have been a God-fearer (Acts 16:14) as was Titus Justus (Acts 18:7).

6. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, trans. Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), p. 346, fn. 2.

7. Frank Stagg, The Book of Acts: The Early Struggle for an Unhindered Gospel (Nashville: Broadman, 1955), p. 117.

8. William L. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, the New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 261.

9. T. H. Gaster, “Samaritans,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 4:191.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Vol. 35, No. 2; Winter 2008-09.

Larry McGraw is Associate Professor of Bible in the Logsdon School of Theology, Hardin-Simmons University, Abilene, Texas.

YEARS AGO, a prominent magazine highlighted several of the worst occupations in Texas. Among these “bad jobs” were working in a dynamite factory and gluing the reflector buttons on the highway. If this list had been compiled in the days of Jesus, one of the worst Palestinian livelihoods would have been that of being a tanner.

From earliest history, the procedure of transforming animal skins and hides into leather took on immediate importance. People’s need for protection and warmth could be satisfied through the exterior skins of animals that had been killed for food. Once this discovery had been made, various materials and methods were used to manipulate the skins for their needed functions.

The process of “tanning” the leather began with cleaning and soaking the hides. Into this watery solution was added numerous natural ingredients, such as bark, leaves, lime, other fruits, and plant juices.¹ Later, minerals, such as salt and alum, were used to affect the chemical composition in a similar fashion. These procedures reinforced the molecular structure of the hides to provide a stronger product for use.

Into this material, animal fats and brains were rubbed to provide extra qualities of flexibility and softness. If the procedure was done correctly, the leather also had a degree of water repellency. The finished product was then often stored in a dry area that would receive smoke from a wood fire. At this point, leather had been made by the process of “tanning” the skin.

Ancient civilizations, such as the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Greeks, practiced the profession of tanning as one of their many trades. Among the Hebrews, however, this needed occupation became the recipient of much scorn and disdain. The poor reputation of tanning can be seen by the absence of any specific references in the Old Testament to it.

Although “tanning” was not specifically cited, leather objects, skins, and hides were used by the Hebrews. One major area in the Old Testament describing the use of such material was in the description of the building of the tabernacle (Ex. 25 – 39). Numerous references were made to the people contributing “rams’ skins dyed red” (for example Ex. 25:5) for the collection of materials needed for the tabernacle. Remarks about the “skins” being “dyed red” provided the probability of those skins having undergone the tanning process.

By the days of the New Testament, communities would regularly have the trade of tanner numbered among regularly have the trade of tanner numbered among its commercial enterprises. The connection of the trade to its materials can be seen through the Greek words used for it. A tanner (bruseos) was one who worked with a hide (bursa).

For the Jews, however, the profession was still not completely respected and appreciated. Working with dead animals, considered “unclean,” provided one reason for its scorn. The second reason included a sense of aesthetics. The carcasses, natural materials, and minerals involved in the tanning process produced a horrible odor.

The one truly honorable aspect of the tanner’s work that did draw the esteem and appreciation of the Jewish community was the preparation of parchment. Parchment provided an excellent material to be used in the production of manuscripts of Jewish literature – primarily the books of the Old Testament. Being made from animal skin, it “first had the hair and flesh removed by a solution of lime mordant, and was then trimmed to size, polished, and smoothed with chalk and pumice stone to prepare the surface for use.”²

One quiet figure who intersected the history of the spread of the church throughout Palestine practiced this profession – a tanner named Simon (Acts 9:43; 10:6,32). This little-known man doing a little-appreciated job became the host for a well-known man doing much appreciated missionary work – Simon Peter.

Acts 9:32 – 10:48 tells the story of one of the major turning points in the growth of the early church. Simon Peter, the “apostle to the Jews” whose base was Jerusalem, began to take the gospel throughout Palestine. His efforts would culminate in the sharing of the message with Cornelius, a Roman centurion and a Gentile.

Within this episode, Simon Peter traveled to the cities of Lydda and Joppa. Following a spectacular miracle of raising Tabitha from the dead, Simon Peter remained in Joppa for “many days” working among the people and staying “with a certain tanner, Simon” (9:32, NASB).

Due to his profession, the tanner’s residence would typically be outside of the main part of Joppa. Because of the nature of his work, Simon the tanner’s residence was located by the Mediterranean Sea (10:6). His house would be surrounded by animal pens, storage areas, and masonry vats used in his profession. Such tanneries tended to be “very unpretentious affairs, usually consisting of one or two small rooms and a courtyard.”³

Simon Peter remained under this hospitality while God prepared the heart of Cornelius. From his home in Caesarea, Cornelius received the commission from the Lord to send men to Joppa to retrieve Simon Peter, who was “staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea” (10:32, NASB). The result of that impending encounter changed the missionary spread of the gospel for all time.

God was moving in Simon Peter’s heart as much as He was in that of Cornelius. Having the great apostle stay in the house of one who handled the “unclean” served as the backdrop for the vision that would prod Simon Peter to take the gospel to the Gentiles. In the midst of a setting of animals and an “unclean” profession, Simon Peter learned that God was removing the cultural and sociological barriers. God taught a great spiritual truth to Simon Peter through the humble circumstances of a tanner named Simon.

1. James I. Packer, Merrill C. Tenney, and William White, Jr., eds., The Bible Almanac (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980), 478.

2. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), 76.

3. James A. Patch, “Tanner,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 5 vols., (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1939), 5:2908.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Spring, 1993.

BIBLE CHARACTER TRIVIA

Where In The Bible Is The Answer To This Week’s Trivia Question Found? To whom was it said, “your brothers will praise you”? Answer next week!

The answer to last week’s trivia question: Who is represented in the Bible as a model housekeeper? Answer! Martha; Luke10:38-42.

Study Theme: Going Right in a Culture Gone Wrong					What This Lesson Is About:
Week of:			Lesson Title:		God doesn’t show favoritism and neither should we.
	Jan 1		Thriving in a Fast-Food Culture
	Jan 8		Seeking Purity in a Sensual Culture
	Jan 15		Caring in an Expendable Culture
X	*Jan 22*		*Loving in a Divided Culture*
	Jan 29		Giving in a Greedy Culture
BACKGROUND PASSAGE:				Acts 10:1-48
FOCAL PASSAGE:				Acts 10:9-15,22-23,28-29a,34-36
LIFE IMPACT:				This lesson can help you identify your prejudices and look for ways to overcome them.
LESSON OUTLINE:				I. Challenge Your Assumptions (Acts 10:9-15) II. Change Your Behavior (Acts 10:22-23,28-29a) III. Clarify that Jesus Is Lord of All (Acts 10:34-36)
OVERVIEW OF BACKGROUND PASSAGE:
Cornelius’s Vision 10:1-8 Cornelius’s conversion is recounted in four steps. Significant emphasis is placed on the power of God and the work of the Holy Spirit that brings this event to completion. Peter had been led to the right place at the right time. Luke began with Cornelius’s encounter with the angel of God (10:1-8). Cornelius was a Roman centurion, but he and his household were “devout and God-fearing” (10:2). He was generous and had a good reputation within the Jewish community of Caesarea. Luke may have meant to characterize Cornelius as one of those Gentiles who practiced the Jewish faith. The term “God-fearing” in this case, though, does not necessarily imply anything more than devout, moral, and monotheistic behavior. Cornelius’s religious practices had been acceptable to God, whether or not Cornelius was worshiping as a Jew, for the angel mentioned Cornelius’s gifts and work with the poor as the reason for God’s favor. Cornelius’s vision was only a prelude to conversion, since it ended with the command to send to Joppa for Peter. Nothing Unclean 10:9-23a On the day after Cornelius’s vision, Peter climbed to the top of Simon’s house around noon, perhaps to rest between meals. Noon in Palestine was not necessarily a time for eating; often noon would be a midway point between the meals of the day. Peter’s presence on the roof probably indicated his desire to find a cool sea breeze and escape the heat of the day. As Peter waited for the meal, he “fell into a trance” and had a vision (10:10). Jews followed strict rules concerning religious purity. Eating was an area in which these rules were especially important, for God had called many foods “unclean” and had forbidden Jews to eat them. Jews and Gentiles rarely ate together, since Gentiles could not be relied upon to eat only those foods that were “clean." Peter’s vision denied any distinction between “clean” and “unclean." Peter had no sooner awakened from his vision than the messengers arrived to request his visit to Cornelius. Again Cornelius’s religious credentials and the content of his vision were narrated, this time to Peter. The Gospel for Gentiles 10:23b-48 The third episode of this narrative occurred at the home of Cornelius. Peter and some Jewish-Christian representatives from the community at Joppa had journeyed to Caesarea (about thirty miles) to visit Cornelius. Because of his vision on the roof of Simon’s house, Peter was willing to share the gospel message, even with Gentiles (10:27-29). Peter’s sermon is similar to those in Acts 2 and 5, although it contains more information about the life and teaching of Jesus than do those addressed to Jewish audiences in Jerusalem. Peter and his Jewish companions watched in amazement as the Holy Spirit filled Cornelius and the other Gentiles with unmistakable signs of His presence, “while Peter was still speaking” (10:44). Peter had no choice but to offer them baptism and full fellowship in the community. This passage affirmed the power of God to break down even the strongest barriers of prejudice. SOURCE: Holman Bible Handbook; General Editor David S. Dockery; Holman Bible Publishers; Nashville, Tennessee
INTRODUCTION:
Prejudice is nothing new. History is riddled with discrimination and conflicts arising because “those people are not like us.” As long as there is sin in the world, there will also be pride and the inclination to look down on those who are different from us. Even the ancient history in the Bible includes examples of prejudice, but he Bible also includes the proper response. This week’s study will lead us to consider what it means to live as followers of Christ, under His lordship, in our attitudes and relationships with all people. SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.
I.		Challenge Your Assumptions (Acts 10:9-15)
⁹ The next day, as they were traveling and nearing the city, Peter went up to pray on the housetop about noon. ¹⁰ Then he became hungry and wanted to eat, but while they were preparing something, he went into a visionary state. ¹¹ He saw heaven opened and an object that resembled a large sheet coming down, being lowered by its four corners to the earth. ¹² In it were all the four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth, and the birds of the sky. ¹³ Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat!” ¹⁴ “No, Lord!” Peter said. “For I have never eaten anything common and ritually unclean!” ¹⁵ Again, a second time, a voice said to him, “What God has made clean, you must not call common.”

III.	Clarify that Jesus Is Lord of All (Acts 10:34-36)
³⁴ Then Peter began to speak: “Now I really understand that God doesn’t show favoritism, ³⁵ but in every nation the person who fears Him and does righteousness is acceptable to Him. ³⁶ He sent the message to the Israelites, proclaiming the good news of peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all.

I. Challenge Your Assumptions (Acts 10:9-15) Commentary

II. Change Your Behavior (Acts 10:22-23,28-29a) Commentary

III. Clarify that Jesus Is Lord of All (Acts 10:34-36) Commentary

DIGGING DEEPER: