Acts 12:1-25

What is the theme of this chapter?

Persecutions of Herod.

What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verse 1

About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church.

What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?

Adoration of any human being robs God of the glory that is rightfully His.  This can happen all too easily today too, with movie stars, sports celebrities, politicians, entrepreneurs...and well-known pastor and speakers.  Certainly something to be careful of!

And the people were shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” (Acts 12:22)

Additional observations/questions:

It has been asked, why did God rescue Peter but James was allowed to be killed?  Ryrie explains that God's ways are just inscrutable.  Sometimes this is very true.  But what makes sense to me is that James' death was another indication that the earthly establishment of the kingdom was going to be postponed.  Because of Israel's continued unbelief, God lifted his protecting hand from one of the Twelve (Matt 19:28; Acts 1:15-26; 2:4).  Peter was spared for a time because God still had an important role for him to play in the setting aside of Israel and the recognition of Paul as the apostle of the new economy.  So in this case God's ways don't seem completely inscrutable; we just need to look a little deeper.

Acts 12:20-25

Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon, and they came to him with one accord, and having persuaded Blastus, the king's chamberlain, they asked for peace, because their country depended on the king's country for food. On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them. And the people were shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last. But the word of God increased and multiplied. And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had completed their service, bringing with them John, whose other name was Mark.


Tyre and Sidon - "Had to import grain from the fields of Galilee, which produced large supplies (1 Kings 5:9)." (Ryrie)

Tyre - "An ancient Phoenician town, about halfway between Sidon and Acre, built partly on the mainland partly on an island which lay half a mile off the coast.  Affording excellent shelter for shipping, it was the most famous port of the ancient world, the island containing two harbours well protected by breakwaters.  Alexander the Great was occupied seven months in reducing it; and, after various vicissitudes, it passed into Roman hands." (Walker)

Sidon - "About twenty miles north of Tyre.  A natural breakwater, in the shape of a rocky reef, rendered it a capital harbour.  It rivalled Tyre as a centre of merchandise and, at times, surpassed it.  Like Tyre, it fell to Alexander; and, later, to the Romans.  Herod is known to have favoured Berytus (Beyrout), a maritime port twenty miles north of Sidon, and this may possibly have been the bone of contention between them." (Walker)

took his seat upon the throne - "According to the Jewish historian, the spectacle took place in the theatre.  The 'throne' in question (margin, judgment seat) would be the royal dais fixed in the theatre for the king to preside in state over the proceedings." (Walker)

an angel of the Lord struck him down - "Josephus states that Herod was struck down while delivering his oration and, after five days of suffering, died (A.D. 44)." (Ryrie)

"Josephus tells us that the attack took hold of him suddenly as he stood receiving the worship of the people, and that he had to be carried away, writhing and groaning in pain." (Stam)

"The escape of Peter was soon discovered, and the soldiers, being responsible with their lives, according to Roman law, were of course greatly distressed. Herod sought for his prisoner, but he was beyond his reach. The keepers were put to death by the king. He followed the footsteps of his cruel grandfather, who had the children of Bethlehem killed. He then left Jerusalem for Caesarea, where he had a magnificent palace. Some difficult existed between him and the people of Tyre and Sidon. The Phoenician cities were dependent on Palestine for food, as their land was but a narrow strip along the seacoast. They were therefore forced to make peace, which they did through Blastus, their friend and the king's chamberlain. Most likely the interest of Blastus was gained by a bribe. It also seems that Herod must have cut off the supply of the Phoenicians. They could not buy nor sell. Thus they were forced to bow before the king. In all this, he appears as a type of the man of sin, whose character Herod foreshadows. Then a day came when an audience was granted unto the people. The king appeared in royal apparel. Josephus, the Jewish historian, informs us that his garment was made of the brightest silver, which, with the sunlight falling upon it, dazzled the eyes of the multitude. He sat on his throne, the bema, or judgment seat. Then he made an oration, most likely announcing to the ambassadors of Tyre and Sidon that he was now reconciled. The scene must have been a brilliant one. The people were carried away by the magnificent spectacle and flattering oration of the king, and cried out, 'it is the voice of a god and not of a man.' No doubt the aim of Herod was this very acclamation. He had planned it all. The zenith of his glory seemed reached. Monarchs were then deified, and Augustus, the emperor, was also worshipped. He gave not the glory to God, but usurped His Glory, and the result was a sudden judgment. What happened to Herod is mentioned by Josephus. He, however, tries to shield the king, though he speaks of Herod's wickedness. He says that sudden pains attacked him, which were produced by the sight of an owl, a bird he dreaded, and which was sitting on one of the ropes of the awning of the theatre. The Word of God gives us the true account. It was the angel of the Lord that smote him, and he was eaten of worms. A most awful and loathsome disease took hold of him, and literally he was eaten, after a few days, of worms. 'He was seized with violent internal pains, and carried to his palace. There he lingered five days in extreme agony; being eaten of worms, the case of his intestine disorder. The coming antichrist, too, will claim divine honors and assume the place of God. His end is foreshadowed in Herod's awful fate and the place which is beyond, 'where the worm does not die.''" (Walker)

"It is evident from the record in Acts that Herod's speech was delivered not merely to the princes of Tyre and Sidon, but to the general public, and the fact that the throng in Jerusalem could extol this false 'king of the Jews' as 'a god' while continuing to reject their own Messiah, indicates the length to which Israel's apostasy had gone.  But the homage paid to Herod as a god by his hearers at Jerusalem was not only significant of their apostasy at that time; it was also typical of the future result of their apostasy; their subjugation to the 'Man of Sin' in the end time." (Stam)

But the word of God increased and multiplied - "It should also be noted that whereas Peter, upon his previous deliverance by an angel, had been commanded to go back into the temple at once and continue preaching, he now withdraws from the scene and throughout the rest of Acts Paul is the chief actor.  Surely all this indicates a change in dispensation, as do the other departures from the kingdom program which we have already noted, beginning with the conversion of Saul." (Stam)

Acts 12:12-19

When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. And when he knocked at the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer. Recognizing Peter's voice, in her joy she did not open the gate but ran in and reported that Peter was standing at the gate. They said to her, “You are out of your mind.” But she kept insisting that it was so, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” But Peter continued knocking, and when they opened, they saw him and were amazed. But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.” Then he departed and went to another place. Now when day came, there was no little disturbance among the soldiers over what had become of Peter. And after Herod searched for him and did not find him, he examined the sentries and ordered that they should be put to death. Then he went down from Judea to Caesarea and spent time there.


the house of Mary - "Traditionally it was here that the Last Supper was held and here now was the nerve center of the church in Jerusalem." (Ryrie)

John whose other name was Mark - "'John' was his Hebrew name; 'Mark' his Gentile one.  From the various notices of him which occur in the New Testament, we may form an epitome of his history: (a) As mentioned above, he was cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10); i.e., they were children either of two brothers, or two sisters, or of a brother and sister; (b) He was connected with Peter in his youth, and received spiritual help from him (Acts 12:12; 1 Pet 13); (c) He accompanied Barnabas and Paul to Antioch (v 25), and, later, to Cyprus (13:4-5).  He deserted them, however, at Perga (13:13), and for this reason Paul refused to take him as a fellow-worker during his second missionary journey, with the result that Mark accompanied Barnabas to Cyprus (15:36-39); (d) We then lose sight of him till he reappears with Paul at Rome, evidently a more consecrated man than formerly and the apostle's accepted companion and co-worker (Col 9:10; Philem 24).  During St Paul's second imprisonment at Rome, we find the apostle bidding Timothy to come speedily and bring Mark with him (2 Tim 4:11), as being 'useful for ministering'; (e) 1 Pet. v 13, shows him again associated with St Peter and suggests that he had visited some of those churches of Asia Minor to which that apostle is writing.  His co-partnership with Peter may have been during the period which elapsed between his departure with Barnabas to Cyprus and his re-appearance at Rome with Paul; (f) All that we know certainly, in addition, is that he was the writer of the second Gospel, in the composition of which he had, most probably, St Peter's help and advice.  Papias says that he wrote it as that apostle's interpreter."  (Walker)

his angel - "For other guardian angels in Scripture, see Gen 48:16; Dan 10:20-21; 12:1; Matt 18:10; Heb 1:14." (Ryrie)

"Whether they meant that Peter's disembodied spirit or his guardian angel (Matt 18:10; Heb 1:14) had appeared, or whether they even knew what they meant, is hard to say, but the significant fact is that they still lacked faith to believe that God had actually answered their prayers." (Stam)

James - "Our Lord's brother.  He stands forth to prominence here for the first time as a leader of the Church in Jerusalem.  In chapter 15:13-21, we see him as president of the Council held in that city to consider the position of the Gentile churches; and other notices of him in the New Testament confirm the fact that he held a psoition in some respect analogous to that of the later episcopate (Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12; Acts 21:18).  He was, so to speak, head of the college of presbyters in Jerusalem.  To him is to be ascribed the general Epistle of St James.  He is known as 'James the Just', and was martyred in Jerusalem in A.D. 62, being thrown down from a pinnacle of the temple and then beaten to death with a fuller's club." (Walker)

"This James to whom Peter sends his report here in Acts 12 is not, remember, the one of the famous trio, Peter, James and John, for that James had but recently been slain (Acts 12:2).  Nor, evidently, was it James the son of Alphaeus, for we nowhere read that he attained a place of prominence among the apostles.  This James was evidently not one of the twelve at all, but 'James, the Lord's brother' of whom we shall read several times in connection with both Peter and Paul.  That this James was an apostle only in a secondary sense, and not one of the twelve, is clear from the fact that the twelve were made up men who had faithfully 'followed' Christ during His earthly ministry (Matt 19:28; Acts 1:21-22) while this was not so of 'James, the Lord's brother.'  We are distinctly told that our Lord's brethren did not believe on Him during the time of His earthly ministry (Psa 69:8; Jn 7:5).  Indeed, on one occasion, when His 'friends' throught Him made (Mk 3:21) and those of His family came to call for Him (Ver 31) He declined to even recognize them (Vers 33-34).  Later, however, His brethren did come to believe on Him and we find them praying with the believers after His ascension, and listed separately from the apostles, including the two names James (Acts 1:13-14)." (Stam)

Acts 12:1-11

About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword, and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread. And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people. So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church. Now when Herod was about to bring him out, on that very night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood next to him, and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying, “Get up quickly.” And the chains fell off his hands. And the angel said to him, “Dress yourself and put on your sandals.” And he did so. And he said to him, “Wrap your cloak around you and follow me.” And he went out and followed him. He did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. When they had passed the first and the second guard, they came to the iron gate leading into the city. It opened for them of its own accord, and they went out and went along one street, and immediately the angel left him. When Peter came to himself, he said, “Now I am sure that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting.”


Herod - "Herod Agrippa I, grandson of the Herod the Great who ruled at the birth of Jesus.  Agrippa, at least on the surface, was a zealous practitioner of Jewish rites and a religious patriot." (Ryrie)

"Herod, the King, mentioned here is known in history as Herod Agrippa I.  He was the grandson of Herod the Great.  First he had the tetrarchy of Philip (Luke 3:1), then he received the territory of Herod Antipas, Galilee and Peraea; lastly through political intrigue he added to his Kingdom Judea and Samaria.  Much of his time was spent in Rome, where he lived extravagantly.  When he came to Jerusalem he tried in every possible way to gain the good will of the Jews by an outward observance of the law and defence of their customs.  The persecution of the church was no doubt inspired by the desire to gain favour with the Jews.  As far as the historical account goes, it seems his hatred was exclusively directed against the Apostles; James was killed by the sword." (Gaebelein)

"Four Herods are mentioned in the New Testament.  All are types of the Anti-Christ and all were energized by Satan.  Herod the Great who had the children of Bethlehem killed.  The Herod who killed John the Baptist.  The Herod who slew James, and the Herod Agrippa before whom Paul stood and preached." (Gaebelein)

"Mark well: Herod does not stretch forth his hands against the Jews; he stretches forth his hands against 'certain of the church' and, sad to say, Israel is pleased to have it so.  She prefers the reign of this part Edomite to that of their own Messiah ... The Edomites, the descendants of Esau, were Israel's hereditary enemies.  Indeed, Herod's right to the throne was forfeited by the mere fact that he was not of the royal Davidic line nor even a full Israelite (Deut 17:15)." (Stam)

James - the first of the Twelve to be martyred

"... an early tradition, cited by Eusebius,  has it that James' accuser was himself coverted through the apostle's conduct at his trial and was led out to execution with him, asking and receiving James' forgiveness on the way." (Stam)

"... in Chapter 12, we have, next to the raising up of Paul himself, the greatest indication of all that the earthly establishment of the kingdom is to be held in abeyance, as the Apostle James is killed with the sword.  (It was not the death of James, however, that, even partly, brought about the so-called 'postponement' of the kingdom, for our Lord had previously predicted the death of Peter, another of the twelve (Jn 21:18-19).  But how fully this prediction was understood at the time is open to question, for our Lord did not actually say that Peter would die or be killed, though this is what He had in mind (v 19).  The human reason for the postponement of the kingdom was Israel's unbelief; the divine reason, God's own purpose and grace.)  We have seen how our Lord had promised the twelve apostles that they should occupy twelve thrones in the kingdom and should reign with Him over the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28).  We have seen how the number was brought up to twelve again after Judas' fall, by the appointment of Matthias, and how God sanctioned the appointment (Acts 1:15-26; 2:4).  We have further seen how, at Pentecost, 'Peter, standing up with the eleven,' appealed to Israel to repent and receive her Messiah (Acts 2) and how God protected and sustained the twelve in the midst of the most violent persecutions, so that even when all the other believers had to flee from Jerusalem for their lives, the twelve alone remained in the city, divinely protected.  But now one of the twelve is slain; nor can any attempt be made to replace him by another, for he, unlike Judas, has a legitimate claim to one of the twelve thrones.  Thus it becomes evident that the kingdom is not yet to be established on earth (though those of that day probably did not yet understand this) and that a new dispensation has already begun, as God removes His protecting hand from one of the twelve and allows Herod the king to slay him with the sword.  Meanwhile the depth of Israel's declension in seen in the fact that the Jews are pleased with Herod for killing James.  This is why Dr. Arno C. Gaebelein, in his book, The Gospel of Matthew, said: 'The testimony which was begun by the apostles up to the time when Israel rejected once more the offers of mercy from the risen Lord, when He was still waiting for their repentance as a nation, is an unfinished testimony' (Vol I, Pp. 209,210).  And this is why Sir Robert Anderson, in his Silence of God, calls Acts 'a book which is primarily the record, not as commonly supposed, of the founding of the Christian Church, but of the apostasy of the favored nation' (P. 177).  Little wonder that after this chapter Paul, the apostle of the new dispensation, dominates the scene completely." (Stam)

four squads - "Four soldiers for each six-hour shift. Two were evidently chained to Peter and two stood guard (v 6)." (Ryrie)

"Now this present Herod, no less wily and wicked, slays James with the sword, evidently to please the Jews.  And when he see that it does please the Jews, he proceeds further to take Peter also (Acts 12:3).  He will increase his own popularity as king, he thinks, by bringing Peter to public trial and execution.  Thus Herod had Peter arrested and put in prison; very possibly the same prison he had been committed to before.  One would wonder why, in addition to being locked in a cell, four quarter-nions of soldiers were needed to guard him, but it was probably well known that on a previous occasion when Peter was supposed to have been in prison he was found in the temple preaching instead, while the officers who had been sent to bring him to court explained: 'The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors; but when we had opened, we found no man within'" (Stam)

Passover - "One of Israel's three great yearly festivals (the other two were Pentecost and Booths), commemorating their deliverance from Egypt on the night when God 'passed over' the homes of the Israelites during the slaughter of the firstborn.  It was celebrated on the fourteenth of Nisan (March-April) and was followed immediately by the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which continued from the fifteenth to the twenty-first (see Ex 12)." (Ryrie)

but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church - "True, we are to 'pray with the understanding also' (1 Cor 14:15) and the miraculous demonstrations of the Pentecostal era have now passed away, but God is no less interested in us when we cry to Him in times of extremity, nor any less able to help us in time of need, even though He chooses to help in what we might call providential ways rather than by direct intervention in the affairs of men." (Stam)

Peter was sleeping - "He had Christ's promise that he would live to an old age (Jn 21:18)."  (Ryrie)

When Peter came to himself, he said, “Now I am sure that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting.” - "Thus Peter was spared for a time.  He still had an important role to play in the purposes of God in the setting aside of Israel and the recognition of Paul as the apostle of the new dispensation." (Stam)

Acts 11:1-30

What is the theme of this chapter?

The church at Antioch.

What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verses 20-21

But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists [Greeks] also, preaching the Lord Jesus.  And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord.

What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?

I should freely give, according to my ability, to fellow believers in need.

So the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea (Acts 11:29).

Additional observations/questions:

Interesting that the ESV uses the word "Hellenists" in verse 20, while the NASB and NIV use the word "Greeks."  It makes more sense to me that "Greeks" is correct.

Acts 11:27-30

Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). So the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.


prophets - "This is the first mention of [NT] 'prophets'.  The title is given to Barnabas and others in Acts 13:1.  Cf. also Acts 15:32; 21:10; 1 Cor 12:28-29; 14:32, 37; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11 ... The word means 'an interpreter, of God's message', chiefly by forth-telling, but sometimes also by fore-telling, though the latter sense is subsidiary.  The special function of the prophet was that of exhortation, instruction, and edification by means of the declaration of God's message to His people.  In Eph. 4:11, prophets are ranked next to apostles in the orders of the ministry.  In the case of Agabus, of course, definite predictions were uttered, but these were rather the abnormal than the normal characteristic of a [NT] prophet's office." (Walker)

great famine - Josephus reports that a famine occurred ca A.D. 46

over all the world - "That is, 'over all the civilized (or Roman) world'.  We have evidence from Suetonius, Dion Cassius, Tacitus, and Eusebius to the effect that, in the reign of Claudius Caesar, there was famine in various parts of the empire (Italy, Greece, etc.).  As regards Palestine, the harvest seems to have failed largely in A.D. 45, and entirely in A.D. 46, with the result that, in the latter year, a severe famine set in.  Josephus (Antiq. 20:2. 5; 22:5. 2) describes its severity and mentions the fact that Queen Helena (mother of Izates, king of Adiabene in Syria), who went to Jerusalem as a royal proselyte in A.D. 45, was there through the famine and distributed corn and figs which she imported for the purpose from Egypt and Cyprus." (Walker)

send relief to the brothers living in Judea - "... while the Greek word ge is used to denote either earth or land, the word oikoumene is consistently used to denote the inhabited earth and never one particular country, much less could the phrase 'all the world' refer to one particular country.  But then the question remains: Why did the believers at Antioch determine to send relief to those of one particular country?  The answer to this question is a dispensational one.  first it must be noted that the relief was to be provided, not for all the people of Judaea, but for 'the brethren which dwelt in Judaea.'  This was not only because it was proper for these Antioch Christians to care for their brethren first, but because the believers in Judaea were to feel the effects of the famine and the accompanying high prices far more keenly than others, whether in Judaea or anywhere else.  These Judaean believers, it must be remembered, had sold their houses and lands and had brought the proceeds to the apostles for distribution among the needy, in conformity with the standards of the kingdom which they had hoped soon to see established on earth.  Not some, but all who followed Messiah had done this (Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-35) 'neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common' (Acts 4:32).  Even Peter could truthfully say to the lame man at the temple: 'Silver and gold have I none' (Acts 3:6) ... But now the crisis had passed in Israel.  The nation had refused the offer of mercy from the risen, glorified Christ.  She had threatened, beaten and imprisoned His highest representatives.  She had stoned Stephen and waged war upon the Church at Jerusalem.  Now, in infinite grace, God had responded by saving Saul, the chief blasphemer and persecutor, and by saving Gentiles notwithstanding Israel's refusal to become the channel of blessing.  But while this was indeed the unfolding of a gracious purpose, it must not be forgotten that this new program meant the (temporary) setting aside of Israel, the postponement (from man's viewpoint) of Messiah's reign, and the withdrawal of kingdom blessings which the Jewish believers had already begun to enjoy.  Whereas not one of the Pentecostal believers had lacked heretofore, they were now bound to be the first to lack, having already disposed of their property.  And this was only the beginning.  Through the following years, not only the church at Antioch, but 'the churches of Galatia' (1 Cor 16:1-3) 'the churches of Macedonia' (2 Cor 8:1-4) the churches at Achaia (2 Cor 9:2) and perhaps others, including even Rome, a long list of Gentile congregations, were to send material help to 'the poor saints ... at Jerusalem' (Rom 15:26).  Indeed, it was one of the specific agreements between the heads of the Jewish and Gentile churches at the great Jerusalem council, that the Gentile believers should 'remember the poor' of the Judaean church (Gal 2:10).  That the Jewish leaders referred to their poor is self-evident.  They would have had no reason to ask for a promise that the Gentile church help its own poor or the poor in general.  All this indicates that the kingdom program was being gradually set aside and that the new dispensation had already begun to dawn.  The careful reader will note that the believers at Antioch did not have 'all things common.'  They contributed, 'every man according to his ability,' to the need of the Judaean saints.  They belonged to the new dispensation and their giving sets the pattern for our giving under the dispensation of grace (1 Tim 5:8) ... this repeated material aid from so many Gentile churches, in such a time of need, was well calculated to touch the hearts of the Jewish believers and make them ready for the great revelation that before God they were one in Christ with the Gentile believers (1 Cor 12:13; 2 Cor 5:16-17; Gal 3:26-28; etc.).  The raising up of Paul, the conversion of Cornelius' household and these Gentiles at Antioch, in spite of Israel's rejection of Christ, and now this offering sent from Antioch to the saints at Jerusalem were the beginnings of the historical breaking down of the middle wall of partition, made possible through the Cross." (Stam)

Acts 11:19-26

Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord. So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.


Phoenicia - "A country on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, bounded roughly by Mt. Carmel on the south and the river Orontes on the north.  It contained the important cities of Tyre and Sidon.  Coasting vessels from Caesarea would readily convey these evangelists to the ports of Phoenicia.  We find churches, some years later, at Tyre and Sidon (Acts 21:4; 27:3)." (Walker)

Antioch - "... on the Orontes River about 300 mi (483 km) from Jerusalem was the capital of the Roman province of Syria.  It was the third largest city in the empire, with a population of about 500,000.  Antioch was one of the cosmopolitan centers of the world of that day and a center of commerce, Seleucia (16 mi, or 26 km, away) being its seaport (Acts 13:4)." (Ryrie)

speaking the word to no one except Jews - "As we have seen, this was not because they were prejudiced against the Gentiles or did not wish to see them saved, but rather because according to the covenants, the prophecies and the 'great commission,' Israel must first be brought to Messiah's feed before salvation and blessing could flow to the Gentiles (See Mark 7:27; Luke 24:47; Acts 3:25-26; 13:46; Rom 15:8-9)." (Stam)

spoke to the Hellenists also - "But some of these scattered disciples, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, coming to Antioch, now preach the Lord Jesus to the Greeks (not Grecians [Hellenists]), as we shall presently show.  Every student of Acts should know the difference between Grecians [Hellenists] and Greeks.  Grecians [Hellenists] were Jews living, or having lived, outside of Palestine among the Gentiles, where the Greek language was spoken and Greek culture prevailed.  Thus they were Grecianized, but were Jews nevertheless—Grecianized Jews.  The Greeks on the other hand, were Gentiles.  Thus we find Grecians [Hellenists] among the believers before the conversion of Saul, while Greeks are not included until after.  The word Grecians (Gr. Hellenistes) is found twice in early Acts (6:1; 9:29) and not again after that, while the word Greeks (Hellenes) is not found in early Acts but occurs twelve times from Acts 11:20 on.  It is unfortunate that the Authorized Version employs the word Grecians [Hellenists] in Acts 11:20, for there is abundance evidence that Greeks is the correct rendering ... The larger context confirms this view.  Evidently something out of the ordinary had taken place, for upon hearing of it the leaders at Jerusalem immediately sent Barnabas to look into the matter.  In the remainder of the record of this assembly at Antioch nothing is said to indicate that Barnabas and Saul still, like those of Verse 19, ministered to the 'Jews only,' or that later on some Gentiles among them also believed.  From the start their program differed from that which had prevailed at Jerusalem (Acts 11:29 cf. 4:32).  It was this church that became the first great center of Gentile evangelism.  It was this church from which Paul and Barnabas later travelled to Jerusalem to preserve Gentile freedom from the bondage of the Mosaic law.  And significantly, it was no one from among themselves but 'certain men which came down from Judaea' who sought to bring these Gentiles under the law.  And note: 'Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation WITH THEM' (Acts 15:2).  At the close of the great Jerusalem Council the elders sent letters to 'the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia' (Acts 15:23).  And when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch with the news, 'THE MULTITUDE,' hearing the epistle, 'rejoiced for the consolation' (Acts 15:30,31) indicating that the congregation there was overwhelmingly Gentile.  All this militates against the view that the church which was established at Antioch, and to which Paul ministered for 'a whole year,' was made up of Grecians [Hellenists], or Greek-speaking Jews.  It even precludes the idea that the church began as a Grecian [Hellenist] church and became predominantly Gentile later on." (Stam)

"This word [Hellenists] usually denotes in the New Testament those Jews residing in foreign lands, who spoke the Greek language ... But to them the gospel had been already preached; and yet in this place it is evidently the intention of Luke to affirm that the men of Cyprus and Cyrene preached to those who were not Jews and that thus their conduct was distinguished from those (Verse 19) who preached to the Jews only.  It is thus manifest that we are here required to understand the Gentiles as those who are addressed by the men of Cyprus and Cyrene.  In many manuscripts the word used here is Hellenas, Greeks, instead of Hellenists." (Barnes)

"But in the current texts, those to whom the gospel is preached in the second instance are described as Hellenists, not Hellenes.  Yet, if this were the case, the second preaching could not have differed from the first, and the Cyrenian and Cyprian brethren would have done no more than had already been done by the brethren from Jerusalem.  It is hence the opinion of the best critics and commentators that the word Hellenes, not Hellenists, is here the right reading, especially as it is to be found in some very ancient manuscripts, versions and Fathers; and it has accordingly been adopted in most of the recent critical editions of the Greek text." (Kitto)

"There would have been nothing remarkable in these men preaching to the Hellenists who had ... formed a large part of the church at Jerusalem ... Note, also, the contrast with the statement in Verse 19, to the Jews only.  There is no contrast between Jews and Hellenists, since Hellenists are included in the general term Jews." (Vincent)

"The capital of the Roman province of Syria, and the resident of the prefect.  It was built by Seleucus Nicator about 300 B.C. and named after his father Antiochus.  It was situated about sixteen miles from the sea, at the spot where the river Orontes flows through the mountains.  Its port was Seleucia (Acts 13:4).  After Rome and Alexandria, it took rank as the third city in the empire.  It contained a large Syrian population, with a considerable number of Jews also.  But its civilization and culture were Greek, and its official and political tone Roman.  It was thus a sort of cosmopolitan centre, and well adapted to become the centre of a missionary Church.  By continuing their coasting voyage northward, these pioneer evangelists would arrive at Antioch." (Walker)

Barnabas - "Described by Luke as one who consoles or encourages (Acts 4:36).  A good man who was full of the Holy Spirit (v 24), he played an important role in the early life of the church on four occasions: (1) he convinced the apostles of the genuineness of Pauls' conversion (Acts 9:27); (2) he represented the apostles at Antioch and recognized that the movement there was the work of God (vv 22-24); (3) he and Paul were sent by the Spirit on the first missionary journey (Acts 13:2); and (4) he defended the work among Gentiles at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:12,22,25)." (Ryrie)

to look for Saul - "Paul had been in Tarsus, his home city, and in Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21) about five years since going there from Jerusalem (Acts 9:30)." (Ryrie)

"... it must not be overlooked that the reason the believers at Jerusalem had sent Barnabas to Antioch was that it had come to their ears that Gentiles—having neither circumcision nor the law—had come to trust Christ in that city.  It is not strange, then, and a natural step in the unfolding of God's program, that Barnabas simply exhorted these believing Gentiles 'that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord' (a very general exhortation) while he went to Tarsus to find Saul." (Stam)

Christians - "The word appears only here, in Acts 26:28, and in 1 Peter 4:16.  It means partisans, or followers, of Christ, 'Christ's people.'" (Ryrie)

"... it is significant that 'the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch' (Acts 11:26) especially since so many confuse the Judaism of Jerusalem and Pentecost with Christianity.  This title is found only three times in the New Testament: here, in Acts 26:28, and again in 1 Peter 4:16.  One fact is clear from these three passages: that the name was given to the believers by others.  It is even Latin, rather than Greek, in its termination, which may mean that the Romans first applied the name to those who made so much of Christ.  Peter's reference to the name Christian in 1 Peter 4:14-16 strongly emphasizes the fact that is assumed the rejection of God's Anointed One and we must remember that this rejection of Christ by those over whom He was to reign was not assumed until God had answered the stoning of Stephen by raising up Paul to go to the Gentiles." (Stam)

Acts 11:1-18

Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” But Peter began and explained it to them in order: “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ But I said, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’ This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man's house. And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?” When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”


the circumcision party - "I.e., Jewish [believers], who were unhappy at the report that Gentiles were being saved without ritual induction into Judaism.  After Peter's review of what happened, they were satisfied that this was God's doing (v 18)." (Ryrie)

you went to uncircumcised men - "Some, who have found it difficult to understand how Peter could have been sent to bring salvation to a Gentile household before Israel's conversion, have concluded that Cornelius and those gathered with him must have been 'proselytes of the gate,' and have cited ancient writers to show that the Jews did recognize such a class of men.  But while the ancient Hebrews may indeed have placed such as Cornelius in this category of second degree proselytes, those who look to the Scriptures alone to settle the matter will see at a glance that in God's sight no uncircumcised male was considered a proselyte of any kind, but rather an alien from the commonwealth of Israel ... it had been 'an unlawful thing' for Jewish believers to enjoy full fellowship with Gentiles under the then present circumstances.  Had all Israel been saved and become 'a kingdom of priests and an holy nation,' the gospel of the kingdom would then have been legitimately sent to Gentiles as such.  We have ample assurance that the apostles understood this, for our Lord had showed that He labored in harmony with the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 22:17-18) when He said: 'Let the children first be FILLED' (Mark 7:27 cf. Matt 10:5-6; 15:24) and when He sent the apostles to all nations 'beginning at Jerusalem' (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8).  Indeed, Peter had but recently cited the Abrahamic covenant to the house of Israel, declaring that God had raised His Son Jesus from the dead to turn them first from their iniquities (Acts 3:25-26)." (Stam)

the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us - "It is supposed by some that their speaking in tongues (Acts 10:46) proves that their conversion was strictly a kingdom matter and not connected in any way with the present dispensation or the Body of Christ.  In support of this view Peter's words are cited: 'Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.  Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as He did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?' (Acts 11:16-17).  But the Corinthians, who were converted under Paul's ministry and were called members of the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:12,13,27) were also given 'the like gift' and freely spoke with tongues.  Here were members of the Body, then, speaking with tongues.  What we must remember here is that this gift of miraculous power by the baptism with the Spirit was the only way in which Peter, still ignorant of the mystery, could tell that these Gentiles had been accepted of God apart from circumcision and baptism.   This is one reason why even the Gentiles under Paul's ministry were given miraculous powers while God still continued to deal with Israel as a nation.  In this way Jews, believing and unbelieving alike, were given evidence that this was indeed a work of God.  As we progress in our studies in Acts we shall see many indications of an overlapping of the two dispensations, for while God had, with Paul's conversion, begun to usher in the dispensation of grace the new program was only gradually revealed, and meantime the signs must continue to prove to Israel and the Jewish believers that the new dispensation was the purpose of God." (Stam)

at the beginning - "I.e., on the Day of Pentecost.  Since God had done for the Gentiles in Cornelius' house the same as He had done for the Jews at Pentecost (baptize them with the Holy Spirit, cf. Act 1:15), to refuse to accept these Gentile converts would be to resist the work of God (v 17)." (Ryrie)

"Those who hold that the believers at Jerusalem contended with Peter because they were prejudiced against the Gentiles may well ask: If these Jewish believers were not prejudiced against the Gentiles, why did they not follow up the evangelization of the Gentiles?  The answer is: because they had no orders rescinding their 'great commission,' nor any revelation as to the ushering in of a new program.  Peter's mission to Cornelius was a unique case designed by God for a purpose then still unrevealed.  A passage from J.N. Darby's Bible Synopsis may be helpful here:

"'Now the mystery had been hidden in all former times; and in fact it needed so to be; for to have put the Gentiles on the same footing as the Jews would have been to demolish Judaism, such as God had himself established it.  In it He had carefully raised a middle wall of partition.  The duty of the Jew was to respect this separation; he sinned if he did not strictly observe it.  The mystery set it aside.  The Old Testament prophets, and Moses himself, had indeed shown that the Gentiles should one day rejoice with the people; but the people remained a separate people.  That they should be co-heirs, and of the same body, all distinction being lost, had indeed been entirely hid in God... (Acts to Phil., Pp. 431,432).'

"The objection of the circumcision saints at Jerusalem, then, was simply that Peter had departed from the revealed order and program of God, for he, like they, had been sent to carry out a program consistent with the Abrahamic covenant and with prophecy." (Stam)

"The reason why God did not instruct the circumcision apostles to continue  ministering to Gentiles was evidently because, while Paul was soon to begin working among the Gentiles, God was not yet to close His dealings with Israel.  The circumcision apostles were to go on laboring with the favored nation for some time, so that God could say, as He finally set her aside: 'All day long I have stretched forth My hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people' (Rom 10:21).  Surely Verse 18 of the passage we are considering proves that the apostles and brethren at Jerusalem were not prejudiced against Gentile salvation, for when Peter had related his experience to them, they not only 'held their peace' but also 'glorified God' for granting salvation to the Gentiles." (Stam)

Acts 10:1-48

What is the theme of this chapter?

A change in program.

What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verses 44-45

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.

What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?

I need to remember that God is no respecter of persons, that in His eyes all are the same — all are imprisoned under sin and need a savior.  I need to see people as He sees them, never showing favorites.

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith (Gal 3:21-26).

Additional observations/questions:

Stam's explanation as to why the Jews did not associate with Gentiles was quite thought-provoking:

"The Israelites were, indeed, denied the 'unclean' meats of which Gentiles freely partook (Lev 20:25). They were also forbidden to make covenants with the Gentiles or to intermarry with them (Deut 7:2-3; Ezra 9:2) and thus a distinct separation was maintained between them, but we know of no explicit injunction prohibiting any association at all with those of other nations, nor even of doing business with them. Indeed, as we have already seen, the Israelites were specifically instructed to deal kindly with Gentiles who had come among them and treat them as those born in their midst (Lev 19:33-34). Certainly Cornelius, a God-fearing man, and living, as he did, in Palestine, was entitled to this sort of treatment as far as Moses' law was concerned. In what sense, then, had it been 'unlawful' for Peter to even visit Gentiles, and why did his fellow apostles call him to account for so doing? ... We believe the key to this problem is to be found in our Lord's first commission to His twelve apostles (Matt 10:1-7). Here the apostles were specifically instructed: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not' (Matt 10:5). While our Lord had as yet sent forth only these twelve, this rule would, of course, apply to any Jew, even though those who were indifferent or antagonistic to His claims would not recognize it. As we know, our Lord Himself also kept aloof from the Gentiles during His earthly ministry. He did help one Gentile man and one Gentile woman, but they came to Him for help, and at least in the latter case He made it very clear that He had not been sent 'but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (Matt 15:24). We know that our Lord did not follow this course because of lack of love or pity for the Gentiles, but because He recognized the divine play of covenant and prophecy to send salvation to the Gentiles through redeemed Israel (Gen 22:17-18; Zech 8:13, 23; etc.)."

This certainly explains why the disciples stayed clear of them despite the fact that the OT taught that God is not one to show partiality (Deut 10:17; 2 Chron 19:7).

Acts 10:44-48

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.


the Holy Spirit fell on all - "In the case of these Gentile converts, they gift of the Spirit came before they were baptized in water (v 48).  The authentication of the gift was the speaking in tongues (v 46), entirely apart from the laying on of hands.  All this demonstrated, especially to the Jewish brethren who accompanied Peter, that God had received these Gentiles into the church on an equal basis with Jewish believers because they had believed in Christ (v 43)." (Ryrie)

"And here God interrupted Peter.  Most Bible teachers have taught that Peter used the 'keys of the kingdom,' first with Israel at Pentecost, and then with the Gentiles at the home of Cornelius.  This is not confirmed by the Scriptures, however, nor can it be.  Peter did not open the door to these Gentiles.  God took the matter out of his hands, interrupting his sermon and opening the door Himself, while 'they of the circumcision' looked on in astonishment.  It is a fair question to ask how Peter would have concluded his sermon had he not been interrupted, for the Scripture sheds clear light on this question.  Suppose Peter had continued with his sermon and his hearers, like those at Pentecost, had been convicted and had asked: 'What shall we do?'  What would Peter have replied:  There can be but one answer.  He had not, like Paul, been sent to preach faith in Christ without works, for salvation.  Those who believed under his ministry, even among the Gentiles, were to be 'baptized for the remission of sins' (Cf. Acts 2:38 with Mark 16:15-16).  But before Peter had come to this, and just after he had stated the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, God interrupted his sermon and took the matter out of his hands.  Hence Peter later defended himself before the other apostles, saying: 'What was I, that I could withstand God?' (Acts 11:17)." (Stam)

"Here is still another departure from the program of the 'great commission' which should be carefully noted.  Gentiles, from here on and for some time to come, under Paul's ministry, were to be baptized, since God had not yet fully and officially set Israel and the kingdom program aside, but water baptism was never to be required of Gentiles for salvation, as it was to have been under the 'great commission.'  Nor were they to receive the Holy Spirit only after being baptized as outlined in the 'great commission' (Mark 16:16-18; Acts 2:38).  Thus Paul could challenge those saved under his ministry: 'Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?' (Gal 3:2).  As far as the Scriptures are concerned, the twelve did not again minister to Gentiles.  Thus the ministry of Peter, the chief of the twelve, to this one Gentile household, coming as it did, after the stoning of Stephen and the conversion of Saul, was designed by God to cause Peter and the church at Jerusalem to give public recognition and endorsement to Paul's subsequent ministry among the Gentiles when the issue was later brought up (See Acts 15:7-11, 22-29)." (Stam)

Acts 10:34-43

So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how 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.”


God shows no partiality - This fact was taught in the OT (Deut 10:17; 2 Chron 19:7).

is acceptable to him - "The adjective is Paulo-Lukan (Luke 4:19, 24; 2 Cor 6:2; Phil 4:18).  The idea expressed is that the disposition of heart evidenced by Cornelius and men of his type is one which God can regard with favour, so as to meet and satisfy it.  Cf. Ps 1:23; 107:9.  Though the centurion was not yet actually in a state of salvation (11:14), he was an earnest seeker after it.  And those who seek shall find (Matt 7:7-8).  As Bengel says, what is predicated here is indifference as to a man's nationality, not indifferent as to the nature of the religion which he professes.  St. Peter's main point is that God regards with equal favour both Jew and Gentile." (Walker)

"And now Peter makes a significant statement: 'Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons' (Ver. 34).  Mark well, this is the same person who, a few years ago, had been instructed: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles' (Matt 10:5); who had heard his Master say: 'I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (Matt 15:24) and 'Let the children first be filled' (Mark 7:27).  This is the one who had later been sent with the other apostles to preach repentance and remission of sins to all nations 'beginning at Jerusalem' (Luke 24:47 who himself had cried to the house of Israel: 'Ye are the children ... of the covenant ... unto you first ...' etc. (Acts 3:25-26).  But now he says: 'God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean' (Acts 10:28) and 'Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons' (Ver. 34) ... Is is in the epistles of Paul that we learn why God, who is 'no respecter of persons,' ever put a difference between Jews and Gentiles.  He made a difference between them simply to show that there is no difference.  He made a dispensational difference to show that there is no essential difference.  He erected a 'middle wall of partition' between them to demonstrate that that wall must be broke down; that the one is no better than the other." (Stam)

"Cornelius' works did not take the place of Christ, but of Moses (10:35-36).  Suppose Cornelius, after hearing about Christ, had chosen to rest in his own works.  He would, of course, have been lost, for obedience to the moral law in itself has always been as impotent to save as circumcision and the sacrifices.  Witness the cases of Nicodemus, the rich young ruler and Saul of Tarsus." (Stam)

the baptism that John proclaimed - "Peter here stressed a fact which is too often overlooked: that John actually preached baptism (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) and that he did this in connection with the manifestation of Christ to Israel (Cf. John 1:31).  Then he continued with the the story of the Lord's earthly ministry 'in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem' (Ver. 38-39) and finally related how they slew Him and hanged Him on a tree, but how God raised Him from the dead again, and how He had commanded the eleven to proclaim Him as God's ordained Judge of quick and dead (Ver. 39-42).  All this, of course, is strictly in line with prophecy and forms a striking contrast to Paul's gospel of the grace of God, for whereas Peter began with Christ's earthly ministry and proceeded to His death, resurrection and appointment as Judge, the Apostle Paul later began with the death and resurrection of Christ as glad news for salvation and proceeded to His glory at God's right hand as the Dispenser of grace and Head of the Body.  Indeed, Peter, relating the fact of our Lord's death, did not even offer it as the means of salvation, as Paul later did in 'the preaching of the cross.'  Even according to the prophecy and the 'great commission,' however, salvation was to be through faith in the person of Christ.  (Though the true believer at that time would 'repent and be baptized for the remission of sins' according to the divine instructions (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38).)Hence Peter went on to say: 'To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins' (Ver. 43). (Stam)

Acts 10:17-33

Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean, behold, the men who were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood at the gate and called out to ask whether Simon who was called Peter was lodging there. And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.” And Peter went down to the men and said, “I am the one you are looking for. What is the reason for your coming?” And they said, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say.” So he invited them in to be his guests. The next day he rose and went away with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa accompanied him. And on the following day they entered Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered. And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me.”  And Cornelius said, “Four days ago, about this hour, I was praying in my house at the ninth hour, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God. Send therefore to Joppa and ask for Simon who is called Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea.’ So I sent for you at once, and you have been kind enough to come. Now therefore we are all here in the presence of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.”

some of the brothers - There were six of them (Acts 11:12).

"The case of Cornelius was the first of its kind and crucial to the spread of Christianity.  It answered the question, 'Can the new faith (still so closely associated with Judaism) admit into fellowship an uncircumcised Gentile?'  The issue, however, would not be completely resolved for some time." (Ryrie)   [Notice that Ryrie sees things differently than Stam below.]

"Peter could not take such a command lightly.  It was the law of God by Moses, and to disregard it was a serious matter.  When the Lord was with the apostles on earth, He Himself had scrupulously obeyed the law and had taught His disciples to obey it.  He had even called upon His followers to 'observe and do' all that the scribes and Pharisees commanded, simply because they occupied Moses' seat of authority (Matt 23:1-3).  And this was carried over even into the 'great commission' for there, after His resurrection, the Lord commanded the apostles to make disciples of all nations, 'Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ...' (Matt 28:20).  From the record of Acts it is further clear that the followers of Christ, contrary to prevailing notions, had been careful not to start a sect separate from Judaism and had faithfully observed the law.  These were the true Israelites, who accepted Christ as their Messiah, and there had as yet been no revelation to the effect that the Law had been done away, nor do we find any such revelation until it is given through Paul." (Stam)

"The Israelites were, indeed, denied the 'unclean' meats of which Gentiles freely partook (Lev 20:25).  They were also forbidden to make covenants with the Gentiles or to intermarry with them (Deut 7:2-3; Ezra 9:2) and thus a distinct separation was maintained between them, but we know of no explicit injunction prohibiting any association at all with those of other nations, nor even of doing business with them.  Indeed, as we have already seen, the Israelites were specifically instructed to deal kindly with Gentiles who had come among them and treat them as those born in their midst (Lev 19:33-34).  Certainly Cornelius, a God-fearing man, and living, as he did, in Palestine, was entitled to this sort of treatment as far as Moses' law was concerned.  In what sense, then, had it been 'unlawful' for Peter to even visit Gentiles, and why did his fellow apostles call him to account for so doing? ... We believe the key to this problem is to be found in our Lord's first commission to His twelve apostles (Matt 10:1-7).  Here the apostles were specifically instructed: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not' (Matt 10:5).  While our Lord had as yet sent forth only these twelve, this rule would, of course, apply to any Jew, even though those who were indifferent or antagonistic to His claims would not recognize it.  As we know, our Lord Himself also kept aloof from the Gentiles during His earthly ministry.  He did  help one Gentile man and one Gentile woman, but they came to Him for help, and at least in the latter case He made it very clear that He had not been sent 'but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (Matt 15:24).  We know that our Lord did not follow this course because of lack of love or pity for the Gentiles, but because He recognized the divine play of covenant and prophecy to send salvation to the Gentiles through redeemed Israel (Gen 22:17-18; Zech 8:13, 23; etc.).  So far as the revealed program of God was concerned, Israel must first be saved before salvation could be sent to the Gentiles.  Thus our Lord said to the Gentile woman referred to above: 'Let the children first be filled' (Mark 7:27).  Our Lord did not change all this after His resurrection, for under the so-called 'great commission' the apostles were explicitly instructed to begin their ministry with Israel (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8).  This was with the assumption, of course, that Israel would now receive Christ, and that salvation could then also be sent to the Gentiles.  Surely Peter makes it clear in Acts 3:25-26, that Israel must first be saved, so that salvation might flow through her to the Gentiles.  In view of this, it is natural that Peter had considered it 'unlawful' to go to the Gentiles, for Israel had certainly not yet been saved.  Indeed Israel  had declared war on Christ (Acts 8:1-3).  But now the prophetic program was to be interrupted by the dispensation of the grace of God.  God, in infinite grace, had already reached down to save  Saul, the leader of the rebellion, with a view to sending him to the Gentiles, Israel's obstinacy notwithstanding.  To pave the way for this and to ensure the recognition of Paul's subsequent ministry by the twelve, God had now sent Peter to the Gentiles, even though Israel remained unrepentant.  Peter, then, had been in perfect harmony with the will of His Master, and was in perfect harmony with it still as he now went to the Gentiles.  Note carefully the exact wording of his statement in Acts 10:28: '...it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.'" (Stam)

"Let us not confuse this, however, with the revelation of the mystery to Paul.  Peter was not told that there would be any change in the program.  He was not instructed to continue going to Gentiles.  He was imply instructed to go to this one household and, so far as Scripture is concerned, we have no record of his ever ministering to Gentiles again.  In fact we find him shaking hands with Paul, solemnly agreeing to confine his own ministry to the circumcision, while Paul goes to the Gentiles.  It is evident from the record, that Peter did not understand what God was doing.  He was simply commanded to go 'doubting nothing' (Acts 10:20) and when he ministered to Cornelius and his household, God took the matter out of his hands, so that 'they of the circumcision were astonished' as the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-45).  In defending his action before the other apostles Peter could say only: 'What was I that I could withstand God?' (Acts 11:17).  Peter, then, did not receive the revelation of the new dispensation to be ushered in, any more than he used 'the keys of the kingdom' on this occasion, but he did receive a vision and instructions to go to this one Gentile household, and it was on the basis of this incident that the Church at Jerusalem later recognized Paul's ministry among the Gentiles.  How could they object, since their own Christ-appointed leader had himself been sent to the company of Gentiles apart from the conversion of Israel?" (Stam)