Deeper Commentary
10:1 Now there was a certain man in Caesarea, Cornelius by name, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Regiment- Comprised of Italians and true Romans. The man could not have been more Gentile. He was part of the Roman army of occupation, of none less than "the Italian regiment", a Roman of the Romans. For him to be described as "devout" and a God fearer was a deep paradox and challenge to Jews. Ceasarea had only a minority Jewish population; it was a new town built by Herod on the site of Strato's Tower, as the "model Greco-Roman city". Hence it was named 'Caesar City', Caesaria. Many Jews, even moderate ones, refused to accept Caesarea as part of Judah, dubbing it "the daughter of Edom". That a centurion in the army of occupation should be set up as the model Gentile convert, without apparently quitting his job, was a major challenge to Jewish Christians.
In this context, we note that the "Simon" with whom Peter
stayed was a Jew who was a tanner, producing leather goods. The Roman
military machine had a huge demand for leather- for tents, boots, bags,
belts, helmet parts, sword and dagger sheaths, horse harnesses etc. “A
legion required a minimum of 68,000 goatskins to make tents, and more than
3,000 cattle hides annually for boots alone”. “Each tent required some 70
hides, so to put a cohors quingenaria ‘sub pellibus’ (auxiliary
regiment ‘under leather tent’— approximately 500 soldiers) would require
the lives of more than 4,200 goats, and a legion (approximately 5,000
soldiers) something in excess of 46,000”. So without question, Simon was
working for the occupying army. And Peter stayed with him; and Simon
provided Peter with food and lodging. We note that the record says that
Peter was hungry, and Simon's household were preparing food for Peter.
Peter was therefore sharing table fellowship with a man whom most Jews
would have seen as a traitor and not a faithful Jew. But this Simon the
tanner is presented as a faithful supporter of Peter's missionary work. Acts
9:43 notes that "he stayed many days in Joppa with Simon a tanner". This
was no passing stay for one night. Peter arrived as a Christian missionary
and was supported by Simon, following the Lord's command for missionaries
to remain in the first home that welcomed them- which, in terms of the
social norms of the day, meant accepting the message of the messenger. No
decent Jew would have stayed at Simon's home. But Peter did, perhaps
because he was the first person he approached, or perhaps because he had
no choice. Maybe nobody else who owned a home accepted his message.
Tanners were despised by Jews; Lev. 11:39,40 pronounced unclean anyone who
touched the carcasses of even a clean animal, so tanners were seen as
unclean. The Rabbis allowed a woman to divorce her husband for any reason
if he were a tanner. A tanner's yard could not be located within 50 cubits
of any town- hence Simon lived by the seaside. A Jew should never even
learn the trade of a tanner. We note in passing that Paul, Aquila
and Priscilla were tentmakers, which would have likewise have often
rendered them ritually unclean, or at best, reminded them that the
tanner was the but one step between them and ritual uncleanness. Indeed
some texts offer "they were leatherworkers" at Acts 18:3 [NEV "by trade
they were tentmakers"].
10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who
gave much charity to the Jewish people and prayed to God always- The
point has often been well made that doing all these things was not enough.
Faith in Christ and baptism into Him was what was required; and yet his
good deeds were not ignored by God. They were responded to by sending
Peter to him to teach him the Gospel. Note too that devotion to God was
still possible despite being an army officer. There is a significant
silence regarding Cornelius leaving his job after baptism. There is a
purposeful silence here in the record, to provoke our reflections. Because
such matters are indeed a matter of very personal conscience.
10:3
About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in
a vision an angel of God, who came to him and said: Cornelius-
In 10:3,22,25 an Angel ‘comes in’ to Cornelius and gives him hope
of salvation, and then Peter ‘comes in’ to Cornelius and explains that
hope in more concrete terms. Peter was acting out what his guardian Angel
had prepared for him to do, just as Israel had to follow the leading of
the guiding Angel in the wilderness. We too must as it were follow our
Angel.
10:4
And he, fastening his
eyes upon him and being afraid, said: What is it, Lord? And he said to
him: Your prayers and your charity have gone up as a memorial before God-
The allusion is to the offering of incense and sacrifice. And
Cornelius didn't have to be a Jew in the temple to do this. He could do it
in his own home and life situation. Note the parallel between prayer and
charitable giving. Prayer is not simply words; God reads human actions as
prayer, too. And mere words alone are not of themselves prayer, otherwise
whoever is the better wordsmith has the greater access to God. And that is
not the case; some people are wired better as regards words and
verbalizing. We note too that an unbaptized person was still listened to
by God, and his good deeds still registered with Him. The scale of God's
observation and sensitivity to humanity is so huge as to be beyond our
comprehension. Cornelius had his generous gifts responded to in the same
way as his prayers- in that Peter was sent to teach him the Gospel and
baptize him. This suggests that our good deeds are seen as an expression
of our essential self, and are treated as prayers. Yet those good deeds
are not in themselves verbalized requests. It is also doubtful whether
Cornelius was specifically praying for more knowledge and the opportunity
of baptism. But this is how his prayers were interpreted by God, and this
passive though unexpressed desire was interpreted and responded to. Prayer
is likened to incense coming up before God. But so also is the almsgiving
of Cornelius; his good deeds expressed a fine spirituality in his heart,
and this was counted by God as prayer. Prayer is seen as an incense
offering (Ps. 141:2); but the generosity of Mary (Jn. 12:3), the work of
preaching (2 Cor. 2:16); living "a life of love" (Eph. 5:2 NIV); giving
money to the needy (Phil. 4:18) are all seen as a fragrant incense
offering. The act is the prayer. Mary's anointing was to be seen as a
"memorial" (Mk. 14:9), but the only other times this word is used are in
connection with the prayers of Cornelius (Acts 10:4, cp. the OT idea of
prayerful people being God's 'rememberancers'). Likewise, prophecy does
not have to refer to specific, lexical statements; it can refer to the
spirit and implication behind the recorded words.
10:5 And now send men to
Joppa- The sense of the physical presence of the Angel was shown
in Peter's case in the matter of Cornelius. Acts 10:5 says that the Angel
told Cornelius to send men to Joppa to ask for Peter, whilst the same
Angel ("The spirit", v. 19) tells Peter in v. 20 that He has sent
the men. This awareness of the Angel is perhaps continued when Peter says
in :33 "we are all here present before God"- i. e. before the Angel which
both he and Cornelius were conscious had led them together. See on Gen.
18:10.
And
fetch one Simon, who is surnamed Peter- This is the same word
used to describe how believers 'called upon [themselves] the name of the
Lord'; they surnamed themselves by His Name. The Lord had given Simon a
new name, and the idea of having a 'Christian name' was popular amongst
the early Christians. We have been given a new identity, unique to
ourselves, by the Lord who has called us; and will have the new name
written upon us eternally at judgment day. We can conclude that our unique
and new identity / personality is being forged in us throughout this brief
life, and will be permanently stamped into our eternal nature at the last
day. In this lies the eternal significance of character development- for
who we become now, is who we shall eternally be.
10:6 He lodges with someone called Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea side- Peter
later explains that it was not possible for a Jew to enter the house of a
Gentile (:28). So we can safely assume this Simon was a Jew, but not a
very observant one, seeing he worked daily with the skins of unclean
animals and blood. Being there must have provoked Peter to wonder about
whether the Law really had to be kept so strictly; and living by the
beach, he would have wondered whether the Lord's work actually extended
overseas, beyond Israel. All these things were gently arranged by the same
loving Lord who guides our spiritual path too. Peter was being
led along the road towards leaving law-keeping, rather like Elijah having
to depend for his life upon meat brought by unclean ravens. "If a tanner
married without mentioning his trade, his wife was permitted to get a
divorce. The law of levirate marriage might be set aside if the
brother-in-law of the childless widow was a tanner. A tanner's yard must
be at least fifty cubits from any town" (Farrar, Life and Work of St.
Paul).
The AV adds: "He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do". This phrase
is much loved of Luke. Saul and the jailor said the same (Acts 9:6;
16:30), as did the crowds at Pentecost. The point is that encounter with
the Lord Jesus means that we can never again be passive; we are to do
something.
10:7
And when the angel that spoke to him had departed,
he called two of his household servants- Luke uses this term
about Angels speaking to Moses and Philip (7:38; 8:26). Gentile Cornelius
was no less a significant player in God's unfolding purpose.
And a devout soldier of them that served him
continually- "Devout" means just that; the word has a religious
overtone of piety. To place the word together with "soldier" may seem an
oxymoron; it could seem inappropriate, at first blush, to imagine that a
Roman soldier could be "devout". Here we have an intentional challenge of
stereotype. Those we might consider to be in a status which precludes
spirituality may indeed be spiritually devout. "Devout" is the Spirit's
comment through Luke upon this man. Clearly Cornelius' search for the Lord
had not been a private matter; he had spread it to those closest to him in
his family and workplace. As the Gospel spreads to the secular and
unchurched, such challenges to stereotype are frequent in our day.
10:8 And having related all things to them,
he sent them to Joppa- His search for God was not conducted
secretly, behind a computer screen or on a mobile device. He was quite
open about it. Likewise notice how he called together his relatives and
friends to hear Peter's message (:24).
We note the many parallels between Jonah and Peter. They were
both at Joppa, Peter is 'son of Jonah' [bar Jonah, Mt. 16:17]. Both were
hesitant to preach to the Gentiles; Jonah was persuaded by three days in
the fish, Peter by three repeated visions. They were both told "arise and
go" (Jonah 3:2; Acts 10:20). The Gentiles believed the message (Jonah 3:5;
Acts 10:43). The men of Nineveh repented, quite unexpectedly, by Jewish
standards of thought; Cornelius repented and was baptized, again, as noted
on :1, quite against all Jewish expectation. The parallels are to show
that resistance to taking the Gospel to those considered 'beneath us' is a
common human trait. And God patiently struggles with it, ever seeking to
broaden the parochial perspective of His people. Because to be parochial
and judgmental is native to the natural man's mindset. The backdrop to the
conversion of Cornelius and the Gentiles is the Jonah story; it is the
scripture-scape behind the events recorded. The implication is therefore
that those amongst God's people who refused to get on board with the idea
of inclusivity would be left as Jonah is at the end of the book- sitting
dejected, bitter and angry, shaking their fist at the God who is evidently
love itself. For all their much avowed 'defence of the faith' and defence
of [their own version of] God. Peter, we can infer, was initially
resistant to the call to preach to the Gentiles, just as Jonah was. He was
indeed son of Jonah. But it seems he repented sooner and was softer in
God's hand than was Jonah. The vision Peter saw was nothing less than a
nightmare for a Jew- to imagine God telling you to eat unclean animals,
three times. Every halachah was broken, and apparently, God's own law was
being changed by God Himself. Of course, all this had been implied in the
Old Testament as well as the teachings of the Lord Jesus. But all the
same, we must seek to enter into the degree to which it was all a
nightmare shattering of paradigms for Peter. Just as an openness to others
is for many traditions today. His response, especially when compared with
Jonah's, is really humble and commendable.
10:9
Now the next day, as they were on their journey,
and drew near to the city, about the sixth hour- Jesus
removed prayer from being mere liturgy into being a part of real, personal
life with God. The way Peter prays at 12 noon (Acts 10:9), and how Paul
urges us to pray all the time (Rom. 12:12; Col. 4:2) are
therefore radical departures from the concept of praying at set times,
three times / day.
Peter went upon
the housetop to pray- He 'went up', and the same word is used
of how the prayers of Cornelius 'went up' (:4). The parallels between
Cornelius and Peter are extensive. They both prayed regularly, and during
one of those regular prayer sessions, they received visions. The same
Angel was at work with both of them. Thus a solidarity was developed
between the preacher and the convert; and we see this so often in our own
lives too. we of course fail to attach meaning to event, but we can rest
assured that the events in our lives are all part of a wider plan and
potential purpose, which may or may not work out or become clear to us in
this life. Because we and / or others fail to respond as we might,
sometimes things are as it were left hanging, in that event appears
therefore not to have achieved its possible meaning or intention.
10:10
And he became hungry and desired to eat, but while
they made the food ready, he fell into a trance- His hunger,
like the Lord's hunger as He came to the fig tree, spoke of the Lord's
desire to save and have fellowship with ['eat with'] the Gentiles. The
Jews in Simon's home were preparing clean food for Peter [cp. preparing
Jewish people to hear the Gospel], but then Peter's hunger was offered
another method of satiation- in the eating of unclean food.
10:11
And he saw the heaven open and a certain vessel
descending- The very same phrase occurs in Jn. 1:51, where the
Lord predicted that the disciples would see "heaven open": "I say unto you
[plural], Hereafter you [plural- all the disciples] shall see heaven open,
and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man".
Whatever that enigmatic prediction meant, it surely was being given some
application to the opening of 'heaven' to "all men", including Gentiles,
thanks to Angelic work. And Peter saw Heaven open, and an Angel... and the
equivalent of 'ascending and descending' was surely in the descent and
ascent of the sheet containing unclean animals. The context of Jn. 1:51 is
the Lord's observation that Nathanael was "an Israelite indeed" (Jn.
1:47). Maybe His intention was to teach the disciples that actually,
'heaven' was to be opened to non-Israelites too, and Jacob lying on
Gentile ground that night with Angels ascending and descending upon him
was some kind of foretaste of the body of Christ in future times. The
opening of the 'heaven' of the Most Holy place at the Lord's death clearly
gave the message that now the way into the holiest was open to all. Peter
would also have recalled how the heavens were opened (same words used) at
the Lord's baptism, and the dove / Holy Spirit 'descended'. Now he saw
heaven opened, and was to see the Spirit descending upon Gentiles. They
were, therefore, Jesus- the body of Christ, upon whom the Spirit first
descended. Ezekiel likewise saw heaven opened and entered into a vision,
whilst sitting with the captives in gentile Babylon (Ez. 1:1); thereby
encouraging Peter that he was no less significant than the revered Old
Testament prophets.
As it were a great sheet- The word strictly means a sail.
Perhaps this was an echo from Peter's fisherman past, an image coming back
in his dreams. And it was maybe an image recently impressed in his mind as
living next to the beach, he would have seen boats at sea. Maybe this
image was used to teach Peter that now the disciples should go overseas by
boat to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. If Sigmund Freud were amongst
us, with his theories of dreams, he would likely have suggested that this
aspect of the dream was an example of Peter's inner conscience and
unexpressed awareness speaking to him- in this case, that the Gospel
should indeed go to the Gentiles. And yet the dream was given by God,
ultimately- perhaps using all these images, from whatever sources, in
order to deliver the message to Peter.
Let down by four corners upon the earth-
Another example of Luke's medical language, as this was the term used for
the ends of bandages.
10:12 Wherein
were all manner of fourfooted animals, and creeping things of the earth
and birds of the sky- This translation is misleading. The idea
is that every kind of four-footed animals were there, looking forward to
how "all men" were to be encompassed in God's saving purpose.
10:13
And there came a voice to him: Rise, Peter. Kill
and eat- This could as well be understood as the language of
sacrifice; the animals were killed and then the offerer ate part of them,
to demonstrate his identity with the animal. Likewise see on :35 Is
acceptable. Peter's killing and eating was obviously symbolic of the
acceptance of the Gentile converts; Paul's words in Rom. 15:16 surely
allude to this incident and use the same sacrificial language, as if to
say that he shared Peter's mission: "That I should be a minister of Christ
Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up
of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy
Spirit". Peter's work with the Gentile Cornelius was sanctified by the
Holy Spirit in that the Spirit descended upon them before their baptisms.
If "kill and eat" indeed refers to sacrifice, Peter's shock is even more
understandable; he was being asked to not merely eat unclean food, but to
actually offer it as a sacrifice to God.
10:14
Peter said: Not so, Lord. For I have never eaten
anything that is common or unclean- The figure of 'eating' is
being used in this incident to speak of fellowship. This confirms the
impression we have throughout the New Testament- that eating together was
seen as an act of fellowship. The open table manners of the Lord Jesus are
therefore the more worthy of notice- eating with sinners and eating
together in the feeding miracles with thousands of people, including some
Gentiles. An example of relevant Old Testament quotation is shown when
Christ asked Peter to kill and eat unclean animals. He replied by quoting
from Ez. 4:14, where Ezekiel refuses to eat similar food when asked to by
the Angel. Perhaps Peter saw himself as Ezekiel's antitype in his
witnessing against Israel's rejection of the word of God in Christ (note
how Ez. 4:16 is a prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction in AD70). 'In the
same way as God made a concession to Ezekiel about this command to eat
unclean food', Peter reasoned, 'so perhaps my Lord will do for me'. But
the Lord was to teach him even greater things than Ezekiel.
10:15- see on Acts 10:35,36.
And a voice came to him again the second time:
What God has cleansed- The unclean animals which Peter
saw in the vision represented all the Gentile world (Acts 10:15,28). They
had already all been potentially “cleansed” by the blood of Christ, but He
was dead in vain, the cleansing achieved for nothing, unless the likes of
Peter took the message to them. The more and the wider and the more
powerfully we do this, the more we enable the cross of Christ to be
victorious, to achieve its end, the more ‘worthwhile’ as it were was the
Lord’s sacrifice.
Do not call common- The fact we can be guilty of causing
others to stumble means that we can limit God's gracious plan for them. By
refusing to preach to the Gentiles, Peter was ‘making common’ what God had
potentially cleansed (Acts 10:15 RV). We can spiritually destroy
our brother, for whom Christ died (Rom. 14:15); we can undo the work of
the cross for a brother who would otherwise be saved by it. We can make
others sin (Ex. 23:33; 1 Sam. 2:24; 1 Kings 16:19).
Peter was told not to call or make common that which God had
[potentially] cleansed; but the Greek is always elsewhere translated to
defile or to make unclean. ‘Don’t make unclean what God’s made clean’ is
the idea. By refusing table fellowship to people, we are proactively
making them unclean- we are treating them as if the cleansing work of
Christ has no possible connection to them. And so often, people end up
acting and believing according to how others act toward them in such
matters of spirituality. They simply walk away from the table from which
they were excluded, and from all that is represented upon it… That is the
observed reality in thousands of cases. David felt that being cast out of
the community of Israel was effectively saying to him "Go, serve other
gods" (1 Sam. 26:19). Nobody probably ever said those actual words to him,
but this verse captures well how people so often read rejection from the
people of God- they do indeed tend to go off and serve other gods. It is
those who cast them out who will have to answer for having caused their
stumbling.
10:16
And this was done three times; and immediately the
vessel was received up into heaven- This surely connects with
the triple instruction to Peter to feed the Lord's sheep. He was being
taught that in practice, this would mean offering Gentiles to the Lord.
And yet although Peter was the one chosen to lead the way in accepting the
Gentiles, he was given a ministry to the Jews whereas Paul was given the
Gentile mission to oversee (Gal. 2:9). Why was this? Perhaps Peter's inner
struggle with accepting Gentiles was recognized, and he was given an
easier way of service which was more within his comfort zone? Or perhaps
Peter was initially the apostle to the Gentiles, but the Lord changed over
the roles of Paul and Peter for some reason? Or perhaps Gal. 2:9 speaks of
a specific missionary endeavour at one time, for which Peter focused on
the Jews and Paul on the Gentiles?
We note that the unclean animals, representing Gentile converts, were
“received” in heaven.
10:17
While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the
vision, the men that had been sent by Cornelius, having made enquiry for
Simon's house, stood before the gate- On 10:9 Peter went
upon I sought to demonstrate that the Lord's providential hand was
creating a parallel between Peter and Cornelius, just as He does between
brethren today. The language of these men of Cornelius 'standing before
the gate' and earnestly knocking is precisely the same language as we find
in the account of Peter knocking at the "door of the gate" after
his release from prison: "He came to the house of Mary... there many were
gathered together and were praying. And when he knocked at the door of the
gate, a maid named Rhoda came to answer. And when she recognised Peter's
voice, she did not open the gate, but in joy ran inside and told everyone
that Peter stood before the gate" (Acts 12:12-14). As he stood there,
Peter was being put into the shoes of those men who had stood before his
gate and knocked. Providence does this in our lives many times, as the
Spirit seeks to bind us together in one close-knit body. When the Jewish
disciples initially wouldn't let Peter in... he must have seen the
similarity with how things could have worked out, had he likewise left
those Gentiles outside, holding to the Jewish tradition of not having
Gentiles into your home.
10:18 And called and asked whether
Simon, who was surnamed Peter, were lodging there- They carefully
and obediently repeat the words of the Angel in :5.
10:19 And while Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said to
him:
Look, three men seek you- This seems
typical of the Spirit's operation to this day. Those who think about their
experience with the Lord are led to further revelation and paths of
action. The same words are used of how whilst Joseph likewise "thought on
these things" (s.w.), he had a vision directing him further (Mt. 1:20).
"The Spirit" may well refer to the same Angel who was active with
Cornelius. Acts 11:11 says that the men called for Peter "immediately"
after the vision ended; but here in 10:19 we have the information that
Peter thought on the vision after it ended, and only then did the men call
for him. His 'thinking' on the vision was therefore brief, but as soon as
he did, the answer came. The Spirit- An Angel, see on :5 Send
men.
10:20 So rise, and get
downstairs- Gk. 'go down'. This is the same word translated
"descending" in :11. As God had 'come down' to Peter and to save the
Gentiles, so Peter was in turn to 'come down'. Hence the word occurs again
in :21, emphasizing Peter's obedience. We really can be part of God's
program in saving others; as He comes down to the excluded, so we are to
likewise.
Without doubting. For I have sent them- The phrase occurs only
here (also in 11:12) and in James 1:6, where we are bidden to ask in faith
"without doubting". This might imply that Peter was being encouraged to
pray for the acceptance of the Gentiles and go forward in doing so
"without doubting". As already outlined in these studies, there had been
hints galore that such inclusion was what the Lord wanted. Even if the
reference is not to prayer, the Lord recognized that Peter had doubts- and
He urges Peter not to have them. His attitude was not that Peter should
have accepted the plain statements of his Lord, that Gentiles worldwide
were to be included in God's plan; nor that Peter should just accept the
way he was being led. Instead the Lord tenderly appreciates Peter's doubts
and prejudices, and urges him to overcome them. This should be our
template in dealing with those who still 'don't get it' or 'won't get it'
over various issues which are obvious to us.
"Doubting" translates diakrino. The same word is used about
the Jewish brethren who then “contended” with Peter over his table
fellowship behaviour (Acts 11:2- diakrino again). The repetition
of the word like this in the record seems to rebuke those who contend with
others about their table fellowship policy; for Peter had been told
not to contend / judge in this matter, and yet those legalistic
brethren did that very thing. “You can’t break bread with us because you
break bread with those we don’t approve of, even though you are our
brother in Christ…” seems to smack of just the same disobedience. But as
always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating; open table fellowship
brings people to Christ, as it did Cornelius, whereas closed table
fellowship drives people away. At least initially, this was recognized by
the brethren in Acts 11 and they too changed their closed table policy.
10:21
And Peter went down to
the men and said: I am the one you seek. Why have you come?- This is
full of allusion to the Lord in Gethsemane (Mt. 26:56; Jn. 18:4-6). There
is perhaps no exact sense in the allusions; but they reflect the fact that
the experience of the Lord’s death and resurrection so indelibly impressed
Peter that he reflected it both consciously and unconsciously. Likewise
with us- even our body language should reflect our experience of such
great salvation in so great a Saviour.
10:22
And they said: Cornelius a centurion, a righteous
man and one that fears God, and who is praised by all the nation of the
Jews, was instructed by a holy angel of God to summon you to his house and
to hear words from you- Yet Peter didn't know what he was to
say. When he arrived, he asked them: "I ask with what intent did you send
for me?" (:29). So he went with the visitors, confident God was leading
him, but with no set piece speech prepared to read to them. We likewise
are to follow the Spirit's leading in the Gospel's work.
10:23
So he called them in and lodged them. And the next
day he arose and went with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa
accompanied him- Just as Peter's 'coming down' reflected the
'coming down' of the Lord in the world's salvation (see on :20), so this
'calling them in' reflects the calling in of "as many as the Lord our God
shall call" (Acts 2:39). Peter had spoken those words, thinking of the
wide range of Jews being called to salvation. But now he would have
realized that the Lord's call was to all men and women; and he was the one
being asked to 'call them in' to the house of the Jews.
10:24 And the next day they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius
was waiting for them, having called together his relatives and his near
friends- See on :8. The same words are used in Luke's record of the
parables of the lost; in a home, friends and neighbours are "called
together" (Lk. 15:6,9). Cornelius was the lost who was being found,
but he was also reflecting the joy of the Lord in Heaven by calling
together his friends and neighbours into his home.
10:25
And when it happened that Peter entered, Cornelius
met him, and fell down at his feet and did homage to him- The
Biblical examples of this kind of thing demonstrate the typical way that
human beings tend to equate the message with the messenger. Cornelius so
respected the message that he thought the messenger was wonderful and
worthy of his respect. The reverse side of this equation is particularly
destructive- the messenger is equated with the message. And therefore any
disillusion with the messenger (or community of messengers) results in a
corresponding collapse of faith in the message. Yet the message is the
good news about God, the Lord Jesus and their Kingdom- not about the
messenger. John the Baptist wisely described himself as merely a voice;
and that is all we are. The truth and wonder of the message we pass on
does not of itself mean that we are pure. Solomon made this mistake,
assuming that his mere possession of wisdom made him somehow spiritually
invincible, leading him to make concessions for himself which resulted in
his final destruction.
10:26
But Peter raised him up, saying: Stand up-
The occurrence together of the words "raised up" and "stand up" recalls
incidents in the Gospels (Mk. 9:27; Lk. 6:8). Peter would have observed
the Lord 'raising up' and then making 'stand up' the sick boy of Mk. 9:27;
and he would have seen this as his pattern. We earlier observed how
Peter's healing of Tabitha reflects the Lord's body movements and
language. This sets us a challenge in our Christianity, our following and
absorption of Him. It should be to the point that the actions and even
body movements of the historical Jesus are so imprinted upon us that we
are literally influenced by His Spirit.
I myself am also a man- These are the very same words on the
lips of the Centurion in Mt. 8:9 and Lk. 7:8: "I am a man". One wonders
whether this Centurion was in fact Cornelius or in some way connected with
him. In this case, Peter would be quoting the words of Cornelius back to
him, assuring him that he too was exactly who he was. We notice how the
essence of this incident repeated in Paul's ministry, when in Acts 14:15
Paul has to assure the crowd that "We are men...". Again, Paul was being
brought to understand Peter by going through similar experiences.
10:27 And as he talked with him, he went in
and found many gathered together- There is a strange emphasis
upon the idea that they were talking as Peter went in to Cornelius' home.
It was that crossing of the threshold which was so significant; and the
idea was that they did it whilst Peter was teaching the Gospel to the
Gentile householder. The need to take Christ to others was what gave Peter
strength to cross that significant boundary line. It was whilst doing that
work of teaching that he found himself crossing the line, and thereby
realized it was but a line in the sand. So many times, going out and
teaching the Gospel, and then 'going with' the convert on their new
journey, has been the means of radical change in the thinking of the
preacher.
10:28
And he said to them: You yourselves know how it is
an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew- If the 'law' in view
was that of Moses, then Peter is sharing his struggle with the fact God
had changed His law. Yet the idea of a Jew not sharing table fellowship
with a Gentile nor entering his house was not Biblical; these were the
'laws' of the Jews rather than of God or Moses.
To join himself or come to- These are the very words used
about Philip coming to and joining himself to the Ethiopian's chariot
(Acts 8:29). The Lord worked in educating His followers using different
means. Peter needed a vision; Philip was taken out into a desert away from
peer pressure and simply told to connect with a Gentile. Yet both men
ought to have figured that the Lord's work and teaching had ended the
divide anyway. But they didn't, and He patiently worked with each of them
in personally tailored ways in order to bring them to the same truths. He
works likewise today. The level and intensity of His activity is simply
colossal.
One of another nation; and yet to me God has shown
that I should not call anyone common or unclean- Gk. 'not
purged'. It could be argued that Peter has in view here those purged in
Christ. For not all men are 'clean' or 'purged'. Therefore I am inclined
to think that Peter means 'If someone, anyone, including a Gentile, is
cleansed by baptism into Christ- who am I to say they are not cleansed /
purged?'.
10:29 Therefore also I came without objection, when I was sent for-
Peter says he went with them because he had seen the vision, and then the
messengers from Cornelius knocked on his door. He felt that was
providential and an answer to the mysterious vision he had seen. But he
describes this in 11:12 as "the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing
doubting / judging". Perhaps the Spirit did not give him a specific word,
to the effect 'Yes, go with them!'; but rather the Spirit arranged
circumstances so that it was not hard for Peter to figure 'Well I guess I
am meant to go with these strangers'. Likewise when Luke says that the
Spirit stopped Paul preaching in Bithynia (16:7), we are not to assume
that he had a specific word from the Lord about it; probably circumstances
worked out in such a way where he figured that 'This is not meant to be'.
And the Spirit works no less actively in our own lives in these ways.
Therefore, I ask with what intent did you send for me- See on
:22. "Intent" translates logos; we could translate: 'For what
word / logos did you send for me?'. Luke has used this phrase before in
recording how the people exclaimed at the teaching of the Lord: "What a
word is this!" (Lk. 4:36).
10:30
And Cornelius said: Four days ago, about this
hour, I was keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my house, and a man stood
before me- The Angelic vision to Cornelius is presented as a
direct response to his fasting and prayer. But what was he praying for?
Perhaps specifically for acceptance amongst God's people and closer
relationship with Israel's resurrected Messiah? Or was it that his prayers
were interpreted as being for these things in essence, even if there was
no specific, verbalized request for them made? For this is how many of our
'prayers' are answered; the essence is perceived and answered.
In bright apparel- The idea is of a good robe, rather than the
glistening garments of Angels; "a gorgeous robe" (Lk. 23:11; James 2:2,3).
This person may have been the Lord Jesus rather than an Angel.
10:31 And
said: Cornelius, your prayer is heard and your charitable acts are held in
remembrance- It's doubtful Cornelius was specifically praying
for a person to guide him to baptism into Christ and an understanding of
the Christian Gospel. But the essence of his spirit was discerned and
counted for prayer. Note that "prayer" is singular- his various requests
and devotions amounted to one essential prayer. This is a great comfort to
all who feel that in prayer, they cannot somehow get the words out right,
or nicely enough. It is the deepest spirit of a person which is discerned
by the Father and Son, and counted as prayer. See commentary on the
resurrection of Lazarus in John 11.
In the sight of God- The same term is used in :33, to describe
how they were all present "here in the presence of God". The generosity of
Cornelius was noted in the very presence of God; and yet Cornelius
realized that that presence of God was also here on earth. The repetition
of the ideas demonstrates how the presence of God was no longer to be
thought of as simply in the Jerusalem temple; the good deeds of a Gentile
were in God's presence, and that same Divine presence was to be found in
the home of a Gentile.
10:32 Therefore- The plan to bring Peter to baptize Cornelius
was all part of a Divine response to the prayers and good works of
Cornelius. It was not simply the sovereign movement of God towards
Gentiles. It was a response to that man's prayer and spirituality. Note
that good works, in this case, regular giving to the poor, had high
significance and partly elicited the Lord's response to the man. Although
we likewise note that good works alone cannot save; it was encounter with
the Gospel and faith in Christ which was so essential.
Send
to Joppa and summon
Simon, who is surnamed Peter. He lodges in the house of Simon a tanner, by
the sea side- This is military language, as if Peter was
already part of the military household of Cornelius. This is the whole
theme of the record- that fellow believers are in a new family
relationship.
10:33
So I sent for you at once, and you have been kind
enough to come. Therefore, now we are all here in the presence of God, to
hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord to say-
Cornelius had just said that he had seen an Angel standing "before me"
(:30, s.w. "in the presence of"). He had been in the presence of the
Angel, and he felt that that had now happened again. He felt the literal
presence of the Angel who had appeared to him. But "in the presence of
God" is the same phrase as has been used to describe how the prayers and
works of Cornelius had come into "the presence of God" (:4,31). It is as
if God's presence had come to earth; the sheet had been let down from
Heaven to earth.
10:34
And Peter opened his mouth and said: Of a truth I
perceive that God- Peter was so powerful as a
preacher, always alluding to his own weaknesses of behaviour and
understanding. Consider this example here: “I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons: but in every nation he that fears him and works
righteousness, is accepted with him [Peter alludes here to Old Testament
passages such as Dt. 1:17; 10:17; Prov. 24:23 and Is. 64:5]. The word
which God sent unto the children of Israel… that word, you know” (Acts
10:34-37). Peter is saying that he only now perceives the truth
of those well-known Old Testament passages. He is admitting that the truth
of his Lord’s criticism of him, that he had been so slow of heart to
believe what the prophets had spoken. And yet Peter masterfully goes on to
show solidarity with his readers- he tells them that they too had already
heard “the word” and yet now they like him needed to believe the word
which they already knew. In doing this, Peter is bridge building, between
his own humanity and that of his hearers. And the wonder of it all is that
it seems this happened quite naturally. He didn’t psychologically plan it
all out. His own recognition of sinfulness quite naturally lead him into
it.
Is no respecter of persons- Later, Peter reminds his Jewish
readers that their prayers ascend to a Father “who without respect of
persons judges according to every man’s work” (i.e. Jew or
Gentile, 1 Pet. 1:17). He was asking them to learn what he had so slowly
and falteringly come to accept. In this was the power of his pastoral
appeal- for the things he teaches are all what he had himself come to
accept after much failure and struggle.
10:35 But in every nation-
Peter’s grasp of the extent of Christ’s Lordship was reflected in
the scope of his preaching. He had known it before, but understood it only
to a limited extent. It seems that he preferred to understand the
commission to preach “remission of sins among all nations” as
meaning to the Jewish diaspora scattered amongst all nations (Lk. 24:47)-
notwithstanding the copious hints in the Lord’s teaching that His
salvation was for literally all men. He preached forgiveness (s.w.
remission) to Israel because he understood that this was what the
Lord’s death had enabled (Acts 5:31). It was Israel who needed
forgiveness, because they had crucified God’s Son- this seems to have been
his thinking. Peter applies the word “all” (as in “to all nations”) to his
Jewish audiences (Acts 2:14,36; 3:13; 4:10). But he was taught in the
Cornelius incident that because Christ is “Lord of all”,
therefore men from every (s.w. “all”) nation can receive
forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:35,36). He makes the link back to the
preaching commission in Acts 10:43: all in every nation
who believe can receive remission of sins (s.w. Lk. 24:47)- as he was
commanded to preach in the great commission. He came to see that the
desperate need for reconciliation with God was just as strong for those
who had not directly slain His Son; for, Peter may have mused, all men
would have held him “condemned by heaven” if they had been Jerusalem Jews.
And he realized that Christ was truly Lord of all, all men, everywhere,
and not just of a few hundred thousand Jews. And with us too. The wider
and the higher our vision and conception of the ascended Christ, the wider
and more insistently powerful will be our appeal to literally all men. Yet
Peter had heard the Lord’s words, when He had asked them to tell all
nations, and when He had prophesied that His cross would draw all men unto
Him. And his comment that “unto you first God, having raised up
His Son, sent him to bless you” (Acts 3:26) suggests he suspected a wider
benefit from the resurrection than just Israel. But all this knowledge lay
passive within him; as with his understanding of the cross, he just
couldn’t face up to the full implications of what he heard. But it was his
recognition of the extent of Christ’s Lordship that motivated him to make
the change, to convert the knowledge into practice, to throw off the
shackles of traditional understanding that had held him from understanding
the clear truth of words he had heard quite clearly. An example would be
the words recorded in Mk. 7:19 RV: All meats were made clean by Christ.
But Peter had to be told: “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou
common” (Acts 10:15). He had to be taught to simply accept the word he
loved, with all its implications. We too can skim over Bible phrases and
verses, assuming our previous understanding of them is correct.
He that fears Him and works righteousness- A reference to
Cornelius as a Gentile God-fearer who did good deeds.
Is acceptable to Him- Whoever truly works righteousness "is
accepted" with God right now, as well as at the final judgment. Some
faithful men experience condemnation for their sins now, with the result
that they repent and therefore at the day of judgment will not receive
that condemnation. The language of being 'acceptable' may be a
continuation of the language of sacrifice which began with the invitation
to "kill and eat" (see on :13). For the same Greek word for "acceptable"
is found in Phil. 4:18: "A sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God".
10:36 The word- The definition here of the word of the Gospel
includes the basic facts of the Gospel story as recorded by the Gospel
writers. Issues of finer theology are not directly part of that Gospel.
Here, "word" translates logos. It is spoken of as the "message"
[AV "word"], rhema, in :37. It could be argued that logos
and rhema are therefore dynamically interchangeable in
practice. Or it could be that we are to understand that God sent a
logos, a message with an intention beneath its words... and the words
of that message, the more literal rhema, was preached.
Which he sent- The idea of a word being sent from God to earth
clearly isn't literal. Likewise the language of the Lord Jesus, as the
embodiment of that word being 'sent' doesn't imply any personal
pre-existence or literal passage from Heaven to earth.
To the children of Israel- The Gospel was initially intended
for Israel, but that message was that Israel's Messiah was "Lord of all",
Jews and Gentiles.
Preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ
(he being Lord of all!)- The text is saying that God is the
preacher; He was and is preaching, through His Son. Our preaching is
therefore an identification with Him. We are His representatives, and we
have Him behind us in what we are doing.
10:37 That message you yourselves know, which was published
throughout all Judea- Even Gentile soldiers on duty in Palestine knew
the basic message of the Lord Jesus, so widespread was the message. If
Peter could reason that the content of the Gospel was common knowledge in
Palestine, we can hardly imagine the Gospel to be much more than the life
and teaching of the historical Jesus. All theological matters could not
then have been in view; and the definition and content of the Gospel
surely didn't change after the time of Cornelius.
Beginning from Galilee,
after the baptism which John preached- There is a strong NT
emphasis on the Galilean origins of the Lord, His message and the whole
Christian movement. Yet Galilee was despised. The point is being laboured
that the origins of Christianity were in that which was despised by men.
Every Jew would expect a Messianic movement to begin from Jerusalem.
But Christianity is presented as having its genesis in despised,
half-Gentile Galilee.
10:38 About Jesus of Nazareth. How God anointed him with the Holy
Spirit and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that
were oppressed by the Devil. For God was with him- The Lord was
empowered to do miracles to demonstrate to illiterate folk that "God was
with Him"; but He was Immanuel, God with us; in that God was with
Him, and He is with us. The Lord Jesus did not heal every sick person in
Palestine. The healing of "all that were oppressed by the Devil"
therefore suggests that we understand "the devil" here as referring not
simply to the source of illness which needed healing. The healing was of
"all" who were under the power of sin and who wanted freedom from that. So
again we see a connection between the devil and sin.
10:39- see on Acts 5:30.
And we are witnesses of all things which he did- The Lord
therefore was never much out of the view or hearing of the disciples. This
implies a significant lack of privacy for Him, making more acute His need
to go away in prayer alone. Truly He 'came down' and in that sense 'dwelt
amongst men'; and men of such limited perception and vision, so constantly
out of step with His thinking, language and direction.
Both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem.
Whom also they slew, hanging him on a tree- Peter points out
the difference between the disciples and "the Jews" generally. He clearly
felt that difference, and reflecting upon it would've made the more
logical and natural his sense of solidarity with Gentile believers in
Jesus.
10:40
Him God raised up on the third day, and gave him
to be revealed- God didn't parade His resurrected Son
personally before the eyes of the world. But He resurrected Him in order
that He should be openly revealed (Gk.). This is the connection between
the resurrection and the imperative to preach the resurrected Lord; the
great commission is therefore directly in the context of spreading the
news that the Lord has risen. So in this sense, the Lord risen and alive
was paraded before men- but in the form of His body, the church. The same
word is used about Christian preaching in Rom. 10:20: "I was made manifest
['revealed']". This open revelation was through the witness of the church.
10:41 Not to all the people- As noted on :40, God's plan was
that the open revelation of His Son was through the believers, rather than
through some public parading of the resurrected body of Christ.
But to witnesses that were chosen before by God,
to us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead-
Table fellowship with the risen Lord thereby empowered them to be
witnesses that He is indeed alive. And the experience of breaking bread
with Him now should lead to the same conviction- we know He is alive
because we sat at table with Him, and thereby we are empowered to be
witnesses of Him to the world. This explains the intended connection
between the communion service and public witness; to turn it into a closed
door private members club is to sadly miss the point.
10:42 And he ordered us to preach to the people- "Ordered"
would be better translated 'commanded'. The reference is likely to the
great commission. But Peter therefore misunderstood that as being a
command to preach "to the people", i.e. the Jewish people. The great
commission had commanded the disciples to preach; the fact Peter adds "to
the people" suggests he is adding his interpretation to the Lord's actual
words, until he assumes that that interpretation was part and parcel of
the Lord's own words. Adam made the same mistake in Gen. 3:3, and all
Bible readers and students are inclined to. Peter seems to be saying that
the Lord had commanded him to preach to the people of Israel, but that he
had been led to now preach to Gentile Cornelius. But actually Peter had
yet to join the dots, and realize that actually the requirement to share
the Gospel with the Gentiles had been hinted at throughout the Old
Testament and was to be found plainly in the actual teaching of the Lord
Jesus. It wasn't a change of plan by the Lord at the time of Cornelius;
rather was it Peter [and the other disciples] being so slow to understand
the basic meaning of simple words, just as they had failed to accept the
Lord's clear predictions of His own death and resurrection.
And to testify that this is he who is ordained by
God- Note the legal language. It's as if we have been
given a subpoena; we have to testify that we have met Him. And the world
is our judge. It is our duty to persuade them, sceptical as they are, of
the utter truth of our case, and that life and death eternal depend upon
judging it rightly. But the metaphor has a double twist; we are on trial,
but we are testifying that actually this risen Jesus is "the judge of the
living and the dead".
To be the judge of the living and the dead- This could mean
that when He returns, the Lord Jesus will raise the responsible dead and
judge them, along with "the living" who are alive at the time of His
return. Or it could be saying that He is right now the judge of all
living, and also of all who have died, seeing He has their records and has
already formulated His judgment of them. This latter option would make
better sense of the present tense used- He is the judge, rather
than 'He shall be one day the judge...'.
10:43- see on Acts 10:35,36.
To him all the prophets bear witness-
It is quite a challenge to find this message explicitly taught in all the
Old Testament prophets. "The prophets" may be a reference to the section
of the Old Testament scriptures known as "the prophets", as if to say that
the essence of the message from that section was forgiveness for Israel in
Messiah's Name. Or "the prophets" may refer to the New Testament prophets,
the forth-tellers of the word of the Gospel. This would make better sense
of the present tense- all the prophets were right then giving witness to
this message.
That everyone who believes in him- Jews
and Gentiles.
Receives forgiveness of sins through his name- The same word
used of how they "received" the Holy Spirit (:47). Repentance, forgiveness
and inner transformation is what the Spirit gift is all about. The visible
manifestations sometimes noted were to demonstrate to observers that
really, those who had converted to Christ really were legitimate.
10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit-
Whilst Peter spoke of receiving forgiveness (:43), the Holy Spirit came on
them all. This suggests that the gift of the Spirit is repentance and
forgiveness; any external sign of it, such as speaking in tongues, was a
mere external attestation of that internal change.
Fell- The same word used of how Peter fell into a Spirit
vision (:10); the outpouring was to underline that these Gentiles were
just as much within the realm of God's operation as Peter. Hence he
observed that the Spirit had fallen on them as on the Jewish believers
(11:15).
On all them that heard the word- The language of the parable
of the sower for positive response to the word. The gift of the Spirit was
not an arbitrary 'zapping' but in response to the hearing of faith.
10:45 And the believers from
among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed- Peter
had just quoted Old Testament scripture regarding how all the prophets
taught that "everyone", literally 'anyone', who believes in Messiah
receives forgiveness. And that 'anyone' embraced Gentiles. But when
"even... Gentiles" were given the Holy Spirit as a sign of their
acceptance by God... the Jewish believers were utterly amazed. Again, we
see how the meaning of the most basic and simple words in the Bible can be
so hard to accept and therefore to understand- because we carry with us so
much baggage of presupposition and assumed understanding.
Because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the
Gentiles- The pouring out of the Spirit elsewhere refers to an
internal process of renewal (Tit. 3:5,6; Rom. 5:5; the same words are used
for 'pouring out'). But in the context here, it was critical that Peter
and the Jewish brethren were aware of this. And you can't usually know
what's happening in the heart of another; therefore in this case, there
was a visible manifestation of the Spirit's activity. The Greek for
"poured out" is usually translated "shed" with reference to the shedding
of the Lord's blood. One achievement of His death was the shedding of the
Holy Spirit; His mind / Spirit, His breathing and thinking, became
available to all who are in Him. For His death was His ultimate act of
identification with us.
10:46 For they heard them speak
with tongues- Probably in Hebrew, which would have been deeply
impressive to the Jewish Christians present.
And magnify God.
Then said Peter- The Greek means just that. We can make God
greater, increase or magnify Him, in that He has delegated His work to us
and it is over to us how far we extend it.
10:47
Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these
who have received the Holy Spirit just as we?- The
word means 'accepted'. Peter had been taught that God accepted
whoever believed in Him, regardless of their race. But now Paul
had to remind Peter that truly, God “accepteth no man’s person”
(Gal. 2:6). The same Greek word was a feature of the Cornelius incident:
whoever believes receives, accepts, remission of sins (Acts
10:43), and they received, accepted, the Holy Spirit as well as
the Jewish brethren (Acts 10:47). With his matchless humility, Peter
accepted Paul’s words. His perceptive mind picked up these references (and
in so doing we have a working model of how to seek to correct our
brethren, although the success of it will depend on their sensitivity to
the word which we both quote and allude to). But so easily, a lifetime of
spiritual learning could have been lost by the sophistry of legalistic
brethren. It’s a sober lesson.
The case of Cornelius (Acts 10:47) shows the urgency of baptism; Peter
didn’t report the case back to the elders, he went ahead immediately with
it. Acts 10:36-43 usefully record “the word” of the Gospel which had been
sent to Israel and which the Gentiles could now also believe: “God
anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went
about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God
was with him. And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the
country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him
on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not
to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who
ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to
preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to
be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness
that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his
name”. This “word” of the Gospel has several allusions to the great
commission- “we are witnesses” is Lk. 24:48, and Peter clearly felt he was
fulfilling the great commission when he says that he is preaching because
after the resurrection, Christ “commanded us to preach to the people and
to testify that he is the one appointed by God”. Peter’s comment that “to
Him all the prophets bear witness” was doubtless said with his mind on how
after His resurrection, the Lord had expounded where He was to be found in
the prophetic writings. The Gospel which the great commission required to
be taught and baptized into is therefore summarized in “this word” which
is summarized here by Peter. It was a brief message about the person of
Christ, His death and resurrection, His forthcoming return in judgment,
and our need to repent and receive forgiveness by association with His
Name.
“Can
anyone withhold” is the same word used by the Lord to rebuke
the disciples for 'forbidding' John's disciples and the little ones to
come to Him (Mk. 9:38); and yet He uses the same word to describe how the
lawyers hindered [s.w. 'forbad'] people to enter the Kingdom. There's a
very clear parallel here between the disciples and their Jewish teachers
who had so influenced their thinking. But they finally got there- for
Peter insisted that Gentiles should not be forbidden [s.w. 'hinder']
baptism (Acts 10:47); and he uses the same word again when he says that
now, he will not "withstand [s.w. 'hinder'] God in hindering people to
come to Him (Acts 11:17). The awfulness of the disciples' attitude is
brought out by the use of the word in 1 Thess. 2:16, where Paul says that
the way the Jews 'forbad' or hindered the preaching of the Gospel was
cause for the wrath of God to come upon them "to the uppermost". And the
disciples initially followed their Jewish elders in this kind of
behaviour. In passing, there is a sober warning here to those who would
likewise 'forbid' baptism to those who sincerely seek it, and who will not
allow ‘little ones’ to the Lord’s table.
10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days-
Implying Peter himself didn't perform the baptisms, so that there would
not arise any cult following of the baptizer.
Previous
