Deeper Commentary
11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers that were in
Judea heard that the Gentiles also had- Does this mean that the
conversion of Cornelius was understood as representative of the conversion
of the Gentiles? Or were there a number of Gentile converts apart from
Cornelius- e.g. Tabitha, the Ethiopian eunuch, and it was to these that
"the Gentiles" refers to here?
Received the word of God- See on 8:14 Received the word of
God.
11:2- see on Acts 10:20; 15:5.
And when Peter had arrived in Jerusalem, they that
were of the circumcision- This term seems to refer not
simply to circumcised Jews, because the majority of the church was Jewish.
Rather would it seem to refer to those within the church who thought that
circumcision was essential for salvation.
Criticized him, saying- The Greek diakrino can
equally mean to enter judgment with. It's as if they set themselves up as
Peter's judges before a church which had turned into a court of law. This
so easily happens to this day.
11:3
You went in to men uncircumcised and ate with them!- It's easy to assume that the arguments
about "regulations about food" (Heb. 13:9) in the first century hinged
about what types of
food should be eaten, i.e. whether the Mosaic dietary laws should be
observed or not. But the angst about "food" was more passionately about with whom you ate. Peter explains in
Acts 11:3 how utterly radical it was for a Jew to eat with a Gentile.
Bearing this in mind, the way Jew and Gentile Christians ate together at
the Lord's supper would've been a breath-taking witness of unity to the
watching world. And yet ultimately, Jew and Gentile parted company and the
church divided, laying itself wide open to imbalance and every manner of
practical and doctrinal corruption as a result. The problem was that the
Jews understood 'eating together' as a sign of agreement, and a sign that
you accepted those at your table as morally pure. The Lord's 'table
manners' were of course purposefully the opposite of this approach. Justin
Martyr (Dialogue With Trypho 47.2-3)
mentions how the Jewish Christians would only eat with Gentile Christians
on the basis that the Gentiles firstly adopted a Jewish way of life. And
this is the nub of the problem- demanding that those at your table are
like you, seeing eating together as a sign that the other has accepted
your positions about everything. The similarities with parts of the modern
church are uncanny.
To enter in to a house was itself a religious act; the word is used
repeatedly about how Peter entered in to the home of Gentile Cornelius
(Acts 10:24,25,27 use the word three times); and Peter was accused by the
legalistic brethren of having not only eaten with a Gentile but also of
“entering in” to his home (Acts 11:3). Likewise Lydia felt that Paul could
only enter in [s.w.] to her home if he had judged her to be faithful to
the Lord (Acts 16:15,40). But the assumption is made in 1 Cor. 14:23,24
that the doors of the ecclesia should be open to even unbelievers who
wished to “enter in”, with all that implied. James 2:2 uses the same word
twice in describing how both rich and poor strangers were ‘coming in’ to
“your assembly”, and being given different treatment by the assembled
believers. The point is, they “came in”- there was no barrier to them. The
church and its table was open.
Peter ate with the uncircumcised- and got into trouble with the Judaist
brethren exactly because the Law had forbidden the uncircumcised from
eating the first Passover (Acts 11:3). The Jews had put a [very large!]
hedge around this law by forbidding Jews from eating with Gentiles period.
Yet Peter was taught that this was wrong- and he ate with Gentiles, it
seems even before they were baptized. But the point is, he had been taught
by the vision that all the old Mosaic category distinctions of clean /
unclean, circumcised / uncircumcised, had now been ended. It seems this
was as large a challenge to the church in the 1st century as it is in the
21st. It was by eating with Gentiles that Peter openly demonstrated that
God had accepted Gentiles (Acts 10,11). In first century Judaism "meals...
were principal expressions within Judaism of what constituted purity. One
ate what was acceptable with those people deemed acceptable" (Bruce
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (London: Doubleday,
2000) p. 473). Note too how Luke mentions that Paul ate food in the homes
of Gentiles like Lydia and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:15,34).
Eventually Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentile brethren (Gal. 2:12).
But he had learnt to eat with Gentile brethren in Acts 11:3; he had
justified doing so to his brethren and persuaded them of its rightness,
and had been taught and showed, so patiently, by his Lord that he should
not make such distinctions. But now, all that teaching was undone. There’s
a lesson here for many a slow-to-speak brother or sister- what you start
by passively going along with in ecclesial life, against your better
judgment, you may well end up by actively advocating. It can be
fairly conclusively proven that Mark’s Gospel is in fact Peter’s.
11:4
But Peter began to explain it all to them in order- Peter didn't claim to be the rock upon which the church was
built; he didn't demand respect for his position, but humbly recounted
what had happened on a factual level. His humility here is impressive.
11:5
I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a
trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descending, as it were a great
sheet let down from heaven by four corners; and it came down even to me-
“Even
to me” is a wonderful reflection of Peter's humility. He was
under the strong impression of his denials, and how he felt he was the
last who ought to have been chosen to receive this invitation to openly
accept the Gentile converts. But this is how the Lord works; He chooses
the humblest, the most humbled, through which to develop His work and to
be at the frontiers of new movements of His Spirit.
11:6 Looking at it closely,
I saw the fourfooted beasts of the earth and wild beasts and creeping
things and birds of the sky- The very same word used of how the
servant girl looked carefully at Peter on the night of the betrayals (Lk.
22:56). Only Luke uses this word. He is making the connection, and
revealing how perhaps even subconsciously, the experience of his failures
was ever present in Peter's speaking and thinking. And exactly because of
this, Peter was the one used by the Lord in this major extension of His
work.
11:7 And I heard a voice
saying to me- The only other person recorded as saying this
phrase in the NT is Paul, recounting how the same Lord had appeared to him
on the Damascus road (Acts 22:7; 26:14). Paul took the humble Peter as his
role model, just as we should.
Rise, Peter, kill and eat- This is sacrificial language. Rom.
15:16 speaks of the preacher as offering up his converts upon the altar;
this uses the same image of ‘offering up’ sacrifices to describe
preaching. And this connects with how Paul speaks in Rom. 12:1 of offering
ourselves as living sacrifices in dedication. The aim of the preacher,
therefore, is to provoke a sacrificial life in his or her converts, after
the pattern of the Master whom they learn of.
11:8 But I said: Not so, Lord-
Perhaps Peter sought to remind everyone that at the last Supper, he had
likewise told the Lord not to wash his feet; and earlier, he had likewise
disagreed with the Lord about His intention to go up to death in
Jerusalem. Peter is emphasizing how he had been out of step with his Lord.
And on this basis, he became one of the greatest pastoral figures ever to
be seen in the body of God's people.
For nothing common or unclean has ever entered into my mouth-
Comparing this with what he is recorded as saying at this juncture in Acts
10:14, it seems he twice stated his objection to the Lord's request. Hence
the voice came twice to him.
11:9
But a voice answered the second time out of heaven-
Perhaps it came twice because Peter twice stated his objection to
obedience- see earlier on this verse.
What God has cleansed, do not make common- The idea seems to
be that God had potentially cleansed Gentile individuals, making the
cleansing sacrifice of His Son relevant to them; but by not preaching to
them or accepting them, they would be made unclean by the sin of omission
of the members of the Lord's body who refused to accept them. We see here
how much has been delegated to us; and the deep significance of sins of
omission in the lives of others. It's simply not the case that if we do
not accept or preach to someone, then God somehow will find another way.
Rather has their salvation been placed in our hands, and if we mess up,
then it won't happen.
11:10 And this was done three times- This could mean that each
time, Peter twice resisted the command (see on :9). Which would mean a
total of six refusals, really quite some resistance to the Lord's will.
Peter's obedience was therefore as it were the seventh time around. He
presents it this way in order to assure his audience that he absolutely
can understand their resistance to the idea of accepting Gentiles.
And all were drawn up again into heaven-
The word is only elsewhere used in the New Testament, again by Luke, in
Lk. 14:5, speaking of how just as a donkey or ox would be 'pulled up' on
the Sabbath, so the Lord was likewise willing to 'draw up' those in need
of salvation. What's significant is that the donkey is an unclean animal
and the ox is a clean animal. The Lord's subtle point in the example given
was that the urgency of salvation eclipsed legal distinctions between
clean and unclean. The 'drawing up' of the unclean into Heaven therefore
spoke of God's saving acceptance of them; but this had to be
operationalized here on earth by His representatives.
11:11
And then three men stood before the house in which
we were, having been sent from Caesarea to me- Just as the
Angel 'stood before' both Cornelius and Peter in his vision (10:30). Peter
was to perceive that those Gentiles standing before him were effectively
the Lord standing before him; to refuse them was to refuse his Lord. And
that same principle must be applied to all cases where men and women stand
before us, seeking our acceptance into the people of God.
11:12 And the Spirit told me
to go with them- How the Spirit told Peter isn't clarified; it
could have been through the circumstance of the vision he had just
received; or a direct word from a Spirit-Angel; or an internal word of
command. I'd go with the first option. "To go with them" renders a Greek
word meaning 'to fellowship with'; and the point was, that the Spirit had
told Peter to do this. Hence he explains that previously, it was not
acceptable for a Jew to 'go with' Gentiles.
Making no distinction- The same word is used in Acts 15:9: "He
made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith".
But this is also the same word used in 11:2 of how the Judaist Christians
"debated with" Peter about his acceptance of Gentiles. Those Judaists made
a distinction; but the Spirit did not. This is an age-old church
situation- the Spirit leads some to accept a previously excluded group,
and the conservatives will not accept them. Whilst it appears that the
conservatives had no option but to accept the evidence of God's movement,
the history of the early church, and the constant reference to the theme
in Paul and Peter's letters, all indicate that in the end, the
conservatives just couldn't accept this. And that Jew-Gentile,
conservative-liberal tension was what led to the church dividing and
becoming apostate. The same has been seen in my own denomination. It
should be noted, however, that the command not to make a distinction is
within the context of not refusing those whom God has accepted. This is
not to say that we no longer can tell right from wrong, retreating to a
position where everything is but a shade of grey. The same phrase 'making
no distinction' is used as a criticism of some believers for failing to
make a moral distinction when they should have done (1 Cor. 6:5; 11:29;
Jude 22).
These six brothers also accompanied me- The picture is
presented of Peter and the Jewish brethren travelling with the Gentiles,
when such mingling with Gentiles was against Jewish practice. Yet he did
so because the Spirit had bidden him do so.
And we entered the man's house- Strictly against Jewish
practice (10:28).
11:13
And he told us how he had seen the angel-
The definite article suggests a specific Angel; the same one who had been
working with Peter. He is called a "man" in 10:30; Angels appear as men,
and in this case, the Angel surely represented the man Christ Jesus.
Standing in his house
and saying: Send to Joppa and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter-
The Jews were not supposed to enter into the houses of Gentiles (10:28).
The fact the Angel entered into the house of Gentile Cornelius was
therefore significant. If the Lord is fellowshipping with a person, then
we also should be. This makes a nonsense of any fellowship position which
recognizes a person as walking with the Lord, but refuses to fellowship
them.
11:14
Who shall speak to you words, whereby you shall be
saved, you and all your household- Belief is essential
for salvation, and yet belief must have some intellectual basis; there
must be some knowledge to be believed before faith can exist. Therefore it
is utterly impossible to divorce understanding from ultimate
acceptability. This is because the vital virtue of faith is rooted in
understanding.
11:15 And as I began to speak, the
Holy Spirit- Acts 15:9 explains that the whole incident
demonstrated that there was no distinction between Jewish and Gentile
believers, in that the hearts of the Gentiles had also been purified as a
result of their faith. But Peter couldn't see into the heart of those
Gentiles. There was therefore a visible manifestation of the Spirit given,
in order to demonstrate to him that indeed, the Spirit was active inside
the minds and hearts of these Gentiles. The giving of miraculous
manifestations of the Spirit was therefore for a specific purpose at a
specific time, which is how the miraculous gifts of the Spirit had always
been used previously. The point is, belief in Christ is followed by Divine
response, in that the Spirit is then made available to purify the heart /
mind of the believer. This is one strong reason to be baptized. Those who
are baptized often openly testify of this sense of God's presence within
them; but unless they make use of it, it truly becomes a case of 'use it
or lose it'.
Fell on them- See on 8:16.
Even as on us at the beginning- The beginning of the Christian
movement is here pinpointed as being at Pentecost. Hence the Cornelius
incident can rightly be called the Pentecost of the Gentiles.
11:16 And I remembered the word
of the Lord- The word recorded in Acts 1:5; the remembering of
the Lord's word was an example of the promised work of the Comforter (Jn.
14:26). When dealing with this tricky ecclesial situation which arose over
the admission of the Gentiles, Peter had truth and right on his side. But
in his account of what happened to the elders, he constantly makes
allusion to his own failures. “I remembered the word of the Lord, how that
he said…” is an unmistakeable reference to his remembering of the Lord’s
word all too late after his denials. It’s as if he was saying: ‘And there
I was again, not remembering the Lord’s word, not facing up to what it
obviously implied, almost denying Him again by hesitating to accept these
Gentiles’. He comments that the vision of the unclean animals came “even
to me”, as if he was the least worthy to have been involved with this
work.
How he said that John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be
baptized with the Holy Spirit- The "you" referred to the disciples;
the fact Gentiles had now been baptized with the Spirit meant that they
were no less, spiritually, than the first disciples who journeyed with
Jesus in Galilee. The 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' in the context would
seem to refer to an internal purifying of the believer by the Spirit which
was began around the time of their water baptism (Acts 15:9). They were to
be given a holy 'spirit' or mind / thinking.
11:17 If then God gave to these
the same gift as He also gave to us- I suggest the gift they all
essentially received was that of the purification of their hearts by the
Spirit (Acts 15:9). And this is the same promise of the Spirit which is
available to us too. It is true that both the apostles and the Gentile
converts spoke in tongues, but I suggest that this was the external
manifestation of the more essential internal change which was being
effected.
When we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ- This reading may
not be correct. The AV is equally faithful to the Greek in omitting the
idea of 'when...': "us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ". If the
idea of 'when we believed...' is indeed correct, the suggestion would
therefore be that the apostles only fully believed in the Lord Jesus at
Pentecost. It could be argued that as Jesus was only made Lord and Christ
at His ascension (Acts 2:36), and therefore the disciples could only
believe in Him as Lord and Christ after that point. Pentecost was the time
chosen for them to make public their faith; I would not be surprised if
they were all baptized in water at Pentecost, and then the Spirit came
upon them in their hearts, and was publicly manifested in terms of the
miraculous gifts. If this were indeed the case, the power of Peter's
appeal to be baptized and receive the Spirit would've been so much more
powerful- if indeed the preachers had themselves just been baptized and
received the Spirit. Receipt of the Spirit is connected with water baptism
throughout the New Testament; it comes at the point of belief. And the
disciples received it at Pentecost. The implication would therefore be
that this was when they were baptized. But admittedly the record is
strangely silent about their baptism. Remember that Christian baptism,
into the Lord's death and resurrection, could only have been performed
after His resurrection. Indeed, His command to be baptized was only given
after His resurrection. So at some point after His resurrection, the
disciples would have been baptized. Pentecost seems a reasonable option;
otherwise, they would have been baptized but apparently not received the
gift of the Spirit until Pentecost. The objection that their baptism isn't
recorded is fair enough; but that problem remains, whichever view one
takes of the timing of their baptism.
Growing appreciation of the excellency of the Lord Jesus was also a
feature of Peter's spiritual growth; he was the first to coin the phrase
"the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 11:17); although never did he call
the Lord simply "Jesus" (indeed it seems that none of the disciples
addressed and rarely spoke about Jesus without giving Him a title). Trace
through the path of Peter's growth on appreciation of the Lord's
greatness: Mt. 16:22 (arguing with Him!); Acts 2:36; 10:36;
11:17. When Peter realized he was looking at the risen Christ standing on
the shore, he exclaimed, with evident appreciation: "It is the Lord"
- not 'Jesus' (Jn. 21:7). And even though he had to swim to meet Him,
Peter cast his fisher's coat about him to cover his bare arms and legs. He
realized the greatness which attached to the Man from Nazareth on account
of His resurrection. After the pattern of Peter, some of the early
brethren likewise reached this appreciation of the Lord's excellence
and the importance of it as the climax of their probations; for many
were slain simply because they insisted on calling Jesus of Nazareth
"Lord", when Nero had insisted that he be called 'Lord' (cp. Acts
25:26). Those brethren (and sisters) died with the confession of Jesus as
Lord on their lips- and more importantly, deep in their hearts.
Who was I, that I could oppose God- Peter challenged the
legalistic brethren of his day with the question: “Can any man forbid
water, that these should not be baptized?” (Acts 10:47). The Greek word
translated “forbid” presents a theme worth paying attention to. Peter uses
the same word when he says later that if he had not baptized those
Gentiles, then he would’ve been “withstanding” [s.w. “forbidding”] God
Himself (Acts 11:17). This is serious. By forbidding people baptism we are
forbidding God, because it is ultimately God through His Son who is the
baptizer of people, thus inducting them into His people. This thought
alone should make it very difficult for any of us to ever forbid baptism
to someone who wants it. Great judgment is stored up for those who forbid
others to preach the Gospel (1 Thess. 2:16). Diotrephes forbad brethren
from fellowshipping with other brethren (3 Jn. 10)- and was roundly
condemned for doing so. The disciples were rebuked for forbidding children
to come to Jesus (Mt. 19:14)- this was ‘much displeasing’ to Jesus (Mk.
10:14, Gk. ‘much much-grieved’); for forbidding the disciples of John the
Baptist, with their alternative understandings of some things (Mk. 9:38);
no man who works in Christ’s Name should be forbidden, although the
disciples evidently thought such a person should be forbidden (Mk. 9:39);
the Jews are condemned for forbidding [s.w. “hindered”] men to enter the
Kingdom (Lk. 11:52; note that to make the way to entry hard and difficult,
creating hoops which must be passed through, is effectively forbidding a
man entry); the Eunuch’s question as to what forbad him to be baptized was
answered by Philip eliciting a simple confession of faith from him, that
Jesus was the Son of God (Acts 8:36).
The grace of God is manifested to the world through the preaching of the
ecclesia; and in this sense, God has allowed His ability to manifest this
Grace to be limited according to our effort in witness. Peter could have
chosen not to baptize Gentiles; and if he had done so, he would have
withstood God, like the Pharisees he would have frustrated the counsel of
God (Acts 11:17). As in the Song of Solomon (1:8), the bride [the church]
follows the sheep [believers] to find the shepherd [Jesus]. The sheep lead
others to the shepherd. God has “manifested his word through preaching,
which is committed unto me” (Tit. 1:3).
11:18 And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying- This initial joy and humble acceptance of Gentile conversion didn't last. Natural prejudices soon arose, as soon happened later in this chapter. Men can come to a peak of spirituality which isn't maintained. We think of David forgiving Shimei, but then on his deathbed, asking Solomon to murder Shimei for what he had said against David. Corinth enthusiastically undertook to support the welfare fund- but didn't then come up with the cash. As emphasized in Jn. 15, the Lord Jesus seeks fruit that will abide- and not the flash peaks of emotional devotion which never carry through into permanent reality.
Then to the Gentiles also has God
granted repentance to life- This shows that He is active in
developing our desire to repent; "the goodness of God leads you to
repentance" (Rom. 2:4). The same words were used by the apostles when
teaching that God had "granted repentance to Israel" (Acts 5:31). That
statement was not untrue, but now they recognized that they had only seen
and preached a partial picture; for the gift of repentance was now rightly
perceived as being to the Gentiles too.
God clearly works, potentially, on the hearts of people. In our moments
of repentance, both at baptism and on the many subsequent occasions, it is
hard to believe that in prospect God's enormous Spirit power has really
prepared a way for us to be totally spiritual. Israel on Carmel with
Elijah were in a similar position; thus Elijah prayed "Hear me, O Lord...
that this people may know... that You have turned their heart back again"
(1 Kings 18:37). He meant: 'They don't realize that you are so willing for
them to repent, that in prospect you have touched their hearts and made
them do it; answering my prayer dramatically may motivate them to make the
necessary freewill response in repenting, so that the spiritual help you
have made available in prospect, can be theirs in reality'. Even the
frankest comparison of ourselves with that motley crew of hardened
apostates should inspire afresh the belief within us that God is willing
that all His people should continually come to repentance.
The road to eternal life involves repentance. Recognition of personal
sin is utterly fundamental to salvation.
11:19 Now those who were
scattered- The use of diaspeiro suggests that the
scattered Christians were now the Israelite diaspora; they were
the true Israel of God. The Greek literally means 'to be sown widely'; and
indeed the seed of the Gospel was spread through this enforced migration.
Because of the persecution that arose over Stephen
travelled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch- see on
Acts 8:1.
Speaking the word to no one except Jews- They clearly assumed
that the command to take the Gospel into all the world and to "every
creature" referred to Jewish people worldwide. We too can read in an
ellipsis into a section of God's word, so confident are we that our
subconscious assumptions are the correct interpretation.
11:20
But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and
Cyrene, who, when they reached Antioch,
spoke to the Gentiles also, preaching the Lord Jesus- Why was
it specifically here that the persecuted Jewish believers began to share
the word with the Gentiles? The term used for "Gentiles" here can also
mean 'Hellenists', i.e. Greek speaking Jews. Perhaps it was initially to
them that they preached, but the ethnicity of these people in Antioch was
unclear, and so it became impossible to divide full Gentiles from Greek
speaking Jews- and thus the Gospel was spoken to the Gentiles. According
to Plumptre, "It was a centre of vice, featuring the harlot-priestesses of
Daphne and Apollo who on occasions engaged in public ceremonies "stripped
of clothing". Heathenism in its most vulgar and debasing forms dominated
the life of the people". One can assume therefore that there would have
been Jews there who had intermarried with Gentiles; and yet in this
immoral city, the Gospel took off. Antioch became as it were the Jerusalem
of the Gentile church. But it's rather like a church being founded in some
deeply immoral area of a modern city; again, the Lord's choice is strange
at first blush. It would've been so hard for the Jewish conservative
Christians to accept that there had been mass conversions of Gentiles in
such a place.
Antioch was clearly set up as the model of an urban, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, immigrant and refugee / asylum seeker based church. The elders we know of —Barnabas [from Cyprus], Simeon "called Niger" [a Falasha Jew probably from North Africa], Lucius [from Cyrene in North Africa], Manaen [raised in Galilee with Herod Antipas], and Paul [from Tarsus]—were all from different cultures. None were locals from Antioch. At least one was known as a black man, and possibly Lucius was also. They possibly faced the same scpeticism as Africans face today when they do missionary work in Europe. Those elders would likely have all spoken different first languages. And they had been flooded with Christian Jewish refugees from Jerusalem after they had fled from there. They came to Antioch exactly because Judaism in that city was famed for being very liberal. Those refugees themselves had only come to dwell in Jerusalem "from every nation under heaven", according to the record of their conversion in Acts 2. And the population of Antioch [reckoned at 500,000] was itself multicultural and multiethnic. So it was all arranged by the Lord that they would become the first church to engage in missionary work to the Gentiles. Their experiences and environment were used by Him to help them make the break from the idea of a Jewish-only form of Christianity. The multiethnic ministry team produced a multiethnic church in a multiethnic city- that was clearly the Lord's intention. And it worked. Despite all the prejudices they all felt, as Jews of varying degrees of orthodoxy. And it is no surprise that the Antioch church became the departure point for three great missionary journeys (Acts 13:1-3; 14:35,36; 18:22,23).
Peter too was gently led to the challenge of preaching to Cornelius, through his experiences in Acts 9- healing a half Jewish woman [Dorcas-Tabitha], living with Simon the non-observant tanner, by the Joppa seaside exactly where Jonah had resisted the call to preach to the Gentiles. The [uninspired] AntiMarcionite Prologue to Luke claims that Luke was a Gentile from Antioch- which would explain his interest in Antioch and knowledge of the situation there.
11:21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number
believed- The Lord's hand, His activity, resulted in people
believing. Again we see that His outreach and grace towards men means that
we are not left unaided as we face the choice between faith and unbelief.
The Lord's hand works on the hearts of men, to give them faith and
repentance (:18). Just as faith is not of ourselves, it is the
gift of God (Eph. 2:8); and as the Lord opened Lydia's heart so that she
believed (Acts 16:14).
Believed and turned to the Lord- These are two separate
things. The equivalent is maybe "The Corinthians believed and were
baptized" (Acts 18:8). The turning to the Lord would then refer to water
baptism. Or the reference may be to the psychological activity of the Lord
in turning hearts and minds to Himself. In response to their
belief, they were turned to the Lord. The same word is used in 3:19:
"Repent... and be converted". After belief and baptism, there
comes the process of conversion. It is something done to us by the Lord,
as much as us seeking to make concrete changes ourselves. It is the duty
of the preacher to turn people to the Lord (s.w. 26:18), and yet we must
ever be aware that this is also His desire; and His spirit is at work
seeking to turn our audience to Himself. "The hand of the Lord" seeks to
do this; and any who remain unconverted, not turned to Him, have therefore
resisted His hand, His operation in their lives and hearts. Only by
wilfully closing the eyes and heart can someone disallow the Lord from
converting / turning their heart to Him (28:27 s.w.). We must remember
this when struggling with the problem of those who do not believe. Their
unbelief is multifactorial, but one element of the equation is that the
Lord has worked to try to win them.
11:22 - see on Acts 8:1.
And the report concerning them came to the ears of the church which
was in Jerusalem- The metaphor of the body is used for the local
church, rather than the global body of Christ. It seems Paul's extended
usage of the metaphor has the same reference.
And they sent Barnabas as far as Antioch-
The Jerusalem ecclesia told Barnabus to go only as far as
Antioch; he didn’t tell them how wrong they were to boss him around. He
went beyond Antioch to Tarsus, took Paul, and then went down to Antioch
(:22,25). In the end, whilst we must respect those who deserve it, we are
personal servants of the Lord who died for us, and we must follow Him
according to our personal conscience. The lesson from this is that we
should seek to be as positive as possible in the midst of this tension
between right and left- especially in the way we write or speak about the
problems. We should seek to move the Gospel forward, whatever unhappy
disagreements there are between those already baptized.
11:23
Who, when he had arrived and had seen the grace of
God- The idea is not simply that Barnabas saw how kind God had
been in accepting the Gentiles. The gift [charis, s.w. "grace"]
of God would have referred to the gift of the Spirit. With Cornelius, the
receipt of the Spirit gifts by him was proof enough to the Jewish brethren
that his conversion was bona fide. And so it was the same in
Antioch- when Barnabas saw the evidence of the charis of God, the
work of the Spirit, then he was assured that the conversions were valid.
Was glad- There is a play on words here. Chairo,
"glad", is similar to charis, "grace" or "gift". The joy of
Barnabas was exactly because the Gentile converts had been given the gift
of the Spirit, which was the proof of their legitimacy as converts. When
those who have formally held a privileged position open the doors to
others, it's a hard thing to be truly glad that you have lost your
position of privilege. The joy of Barnabas and other Jewish brethren
therefore indicates their utter humility and genuineness.
And he encouraged them all, that with purpose of
heart they should cleave to the Lord- The Spirit gift of
cleansing the heart must be responded to; 'use it or lose it' would be the
appropriate slogan. Having seen evidence that they had received the gift
of God, Barnabas urged them to do their part in maintaining that way of
thinking / spirit.
11:24 For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit- He was
the right person to exhort the new converts to retain the gift of the
Spirit, because he had done so himself, and was full of it. We also see
that being full of the Spirit involved some personal effort- his
'goodness' was related to his being full of the Spirit. The gift is given
by grace- but must be retained by our wilful decision to abide with the
Lord.
And many people were added to the Lord- Luke likes to use this
word "added". In 2:41,47 we read of converts being added to the church;
here, they are added to the Lord. He is His church. The word
prostithemi means literally to lay beside; it is used in describing
how David was buried, being laid beside his fathers (13:36). For a convert
to be laid beside the Lord suggests baptism, with all its symbolism of
death and burial together with the Lord.
11:25 And he went to Tarsus
to seek out Saul- The implication is that Saul / Paul had
retreated within himself, returning to obscurity in his home town.
Barnabas knew that Saul had the potential to do far more than that, and
went to try to find him. We too need to make such efforts to encourage
others to live up to their callings. Perhaps Barnabas was motivated by the
fact that the amazing spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles had arisen as a
result of Saul's persecution of the Christians (:19). Perhaps Saul was
consumed with "over much sorrow" for his sins, and Barnabas wanted him to
understand how wonderfully God had worked through them.
11:26 And when he had found him- Luke describes the work of
Barnabas in terms of seeking (:25) and finding. It is Luke who records the
parables of seeking and finding (Lk. 15:8). In those parables, it is the
Lord Jesus who seeks and finds. But He works through His body on earth; in
this case, Barnabas. Yet Barnabas used his own initiative in order to seek
and find Saul.
He brought him to Antioch- This suggests Saul's relative
passivity, implying that it was the initiative of Barnabas which resulted
in Saul coming to Antioch.
And it came to pass, that for a whole year they
were gathered together with the church and taught many people-
The "they" grammatically appears to refer to Saul and Barnabas, hence the
GNB: "the two met with the people of the church and taught a large group".
This establishment of the Gentile mission centre in Antioch was due to
Barnabas taking the initiative and going to search out Saul and bring him
to Antioch. "The church" and the "many people" appear to have been two
separate groups- the two brethren engaged in both pastoral and outreach
work. This would have been in response to the call of the great
commission, to teach the simple Gospel, baptize people, and then teach
them all the Lord had commanded.
And there in Antioch the disciples- All Christians are
disciples, ‘learners’; the twelve men who followed the Lamb of God around
Galilee, with all their misunderstandings and lack of faith, were and are
symbols of us all. The focus was upon Him, not each other. We are all
learners of Christ, taught by He Himself (Eph. 4:20,21). And we are to
make all men into disciples (Mt. 28:19 RV); to make them learners of Jesus
too.
Were first called Christians- It has been suggested that this
was initially a term of insult and mockery. They were Christ-centred, and
so were mocked as being 'the Christ-folk'. However, the term is used as a
self-designation of the community by Peter (1 Pet. 4:16 cp. Acts 26:28).
Or it could be that we can read this as meaning that they first gave
themselves this name of 'the Christ folk'. In this case, yet again we see
that the early community was centred around Jesus as the Christ, around a
living person, rather than around a set of theories and abstract
interpretations. Another option is that it was Paul and Barnabas who first
coined the term. The Codex Bezae reads: "And hearing that Saul was at
Tarsus, he departed, seeking for him; and having found him, he besought
him to come to Antioch; who, when they were come, assembled with the
Church a whole year, and instructed a great number; and there they first
called the disciples at Antioch Christians". "Called" translates a word
which usually refers to a Divine call; so another option would be that
there was direct Holy Spirit revelation that the believers should brand
themselves with the term 'Christian'. This needs to be given due weight by
those who name the name of Christ but refuse to be called Christians.
11:27
Now in these days there came down prophets from
Jerusalem to Antioch- One of them predicted a famine which
would affect "all the world" (:28); yet the Antioch brethren gathered
funds to send to Jerusalem to relieve "the believers that lived in Judea"
(:29). Inevitably one wonders whether these prophets asked for material
support in view of the predicted famine. And yet if they were predicting a
world-wide famine, which would affect Antioch as much as Jerusalem, why
was support only sent for the brethren in Judea / Jerusalem? Perhaps it
was in order to demonstrate unity with different brethren of a different
culture and ethnicity, and was therefore done in absolute selflessness,
seeing that Antioch was presumably going to suffer as well.
11:28
And one of them, named Agabus, stood up-
The Greek form of the Hebrew 'Hagab', meaning 'locust'. Locusts were
understood as bringers of famine; so certain was the prophetic word, that
the person bringing it was seen as the fulfilment of it.
And foretold- Gk. 'signified'. It could be that Agabus didn't
simply predict a famine, but gave a symbolic vision which was interpreted
as meaning that a famine would come.
By the Spirit that there would be a great famine- We have here
a powerful example of what it means to believe the prophetic word. These
brethren were so convinced that the prophecy would come true that they
decided there and then, ahead of the predicted famine, to gather welfare
for those who would be affected by it. There appears to be an allusion to
Joseph, who so believed the dreams he interpreted about the seven years of
famine that he arranged the gathering of welfare in order to cope with it.
The coming of 'great famine' was a sign of the end of the age in the
Olivet Prophecy (Lk. 21:11). We see how the stage was set for the Lord's
coming in the first century; it was Israel's lack of repentance, and a
paucity of evangelical zeal amongst the believers, which meant that His
return was delayed. Until we learn the lesson.
Over all the world.
This took place in the days of Claudius- This only came true in
a limited sense. Perhaps the massive wider reference was to flag attention
to the way that this famine could fulfil the prophetic requirement of
famine in many strange places (Mt. 24:7). I suggest that the extent of
this famine wasn't effected, because the human conditions weren't right to
allow the Lord to return.
11:29 And the disciples, every
man according to his ability- Paul uses the same words in
appealing to the Corinthians to likewise contribute for the brethren in
Judea "every man according to" his opportunity (2 Cor. 9:7). He was
thereby appealing to Corinth to follow the pattern of the Antioch
ecclesia. Patterns of generosity are to be observed and imitated; for we
take strength and patterns in giving from the example of others. There is
also a reference to the parable of the talents- each were given according
to their ability, and were to trade them. Here, the talents given is
applied to whatever material resources we have.
"Every man" may suggest every convert contributed. We must remember that ethnic groups never gave charitable help to other ethnic groups. What was done here was radically counter cultural, and a triumph for the spirit of unity which there is in Christ. The allusion is clearly to the Lord's parable of how "every man... according to his ability" was given talents with which to trade. We have each been given something- and are to trade this by giving away what we have for others. And "every man" was to do this, not reasoning that he had only one talent and therefore wasn't called to do anything. It is the "one talent" category who are perhaps at greatest risk of failing to enter into the ministry intended for them. In the same context of the temple and Jerusalem, there is surely also an allusion to Dt. 16:16,17: "Three times in a year must all your males appear before Yahweh your God in the place which He shall choose... They must not appear before Yahweh empty: every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of Yahweh your God which He has given you". The equivalent under the New Covenant was giving to the poor Christian believers in Jerusalem. Again we notice the stress upon "all your makes... every man shall give".
The Mosaic Law countered the idea that only the rich can be generous.
The purification after childbirth and the cleansing of the leper allowed a
lower grade of offering to be made by the very poor- to underline that
no one is exempted from giving to the Lord, no matter how poor they
are. Consider the emphasis: "Every man shall give as he is able...
he shall offer even such as he is able to get... then the
disciples (consciously motivated by these principles?) every man
according to his ability, determined to send relief [one gets the
picture of a convoy of brethren going to Jerusalem, carrying a little bit
of meal from Sister Dorcas, a few coins from brother Titus...] ... let
every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him" (Dt.
16:17; Lev. 14:30,31; Acts 11:29; 1 Cor. 16:2).
Decided to send relief to the believers that lived in Judea-
First century people were relatively passive to disasters compared to
Western people today. A famine was an act of God, of nature, and it had to
be accepted; the idea of one ethnic group taking up a collection for
another one in another place who were suffering from famine was a real
paradigm breaker. And that's just what Paul engineered, in arranging for
the Gentile converts to take up such a collection for the Jewish believers
in Palestine who were suffering famine.
11:30 Which also they did- This may appear redundant, until we
realize that it is a common human tendency to 'decide' to be generous, but
not actually do it. These brethren decided and also did it. And that is
noted in the inspired record.
Sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul-
This seems a wise pattern to follow in providing welfare relief.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
