Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 10:14
But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
14. Not so, Lord ] Cp. Eze 4:14, where the prophet being shewn that the children of Israel shall eat defiled bread among the Gentiles, exclaims in words very like St Peter’s: “There never came abominable flesh into my mouth.” For the care with which the devout Jew observed the ceremonial distinction between clean and unclean, see Dan 1:8-12; 2Ma 6:18 .
common or unclean ] The oldest authorities read “common and unclean.” The use of “common” in the sense of impure according to the Mosaic ritual is, as were the ordinances about which this language was employed, peculiar to the Jews. But it is easy to trace the steps by which the word came to be used thus. All persons who were not Jews were viewed as the “common” rabble, shut out from God’s covenant, then whatever practices of these outcasts differed from those of the chosen people were called “common” things, and as these “common” things were those forbidden by the Law, all such prohibited things or actions became known as “common.” Cp. Mar 7:2, where the margin explains that “ defiled hands” is in the original “ common hands.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
I have never eaten … – In the Old Testament God had made a distinction between clean and unclean animals. See Lev. 11:2-27; Deut. 14:3-20. This law remained in the Scriptures, and Peter pled that he had never violated it, implying that he could not now violate it, as it was a law of God, and that, as it was unrepealed, he did not dare to act in a different manner from what it required. Between that law and the command which he now received in the vision there was an apparent variation, and Peter naturally referred to the well known and admitted written Law. One design of the vision was to show him that that Law was now to pass away.
That is common – This word properly denotes what pertains to all, but among the Jews, who were bound by special laws, and who were prohibited from many things that were freely indulged in by other nations, the word common came to be opposed to the word sacred, and to denote what was in common use among the pagans, hence, that which was profane, or polluted. Here it means the same as profane, or forbidden.
Unclean – Ceremonially unclean; that is, what is forbidden by the ceremonial law of Moses.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 14. Common or unclean.] By common, , whatever was in general use among the Gentiles is to be understood; by , unclean, every thing that was forbidden by the Mosaic law. However, the one word may be considered as explanatory of the other. The rabbins themselves, and many of the primitive fathers, believed that by the unclean animals forbidden by the law the Gentiles were meant.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
These words may signify one and the same thing, and the latter explain the former; showing that those things are said to be common, which the law, by forbidding them, had made unclean. Others make some difference; and by things common, understand all sorts of creatures, which were forbidden to the Jews, but were commonly fed upon by all nations round about them; and by things unclean, they understand such as by accident became so, as when any of the creatures permitted for use was strangled.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14. Not so, LordSee Marginalreference.
I have never eaten anythingthat is commonthat is, not sanctified by divinepermission to eat of it, and so “unclean.” “Thedistinction of meats was a sacrament of national distinction,separation, and consecration” [WEBSTERand WILKINSON].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But Peter said, not so, Lord,…. God forbid I should do this, so contrary to the law of God, and to my own practice, throughout the whole course of my life:
for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean; in a ceremonial sense, which was in common use with Gentiles, but unclean by the law of Moses: this shows that Peter as yet closely adhered to the ceremonial law, nor did he know that it was abolished by Christ; and notwithstanding the commission given to him and the rest of the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature, and the extraordinary gifts of speaking with divers tongues for that purpose, bestowed on them at the day of Pentecost; yet he and they remained greatly strangers to the calling of the Gentiles, and the admitting of them to a civil and religious conversation with them; the knowledge of every truth was not at once communicated to them, but gradually, as it pressed the Lord to enlighten their minds.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Not so, Lord (, ). The negative calls for the optative (may it not be) or the imperative (let it be). It is not , a blunt refusal (I shall not do it). And yet it is more than a mild protest as Page and Furneaux argue. It is a polite refusal with a reason given. Peter recognizes the invitation to slay () the unclean animals as from the Lord () but declines it three times.
For I have never eaten anything ( ). Second aorist active indicative, I never did anything like this and I shall not do it now. The use of (everything) with (never) is like the Hebrew (lo–kol) though a like idiom appears in the vernacular Koine (Robertson, Grammar, p. 752).
Common and unclean ( ). from epic (, , together with) originally meant common to several (Latin communis) as in Acts 2:44; Acts 4:32; Titus 1:4; Judg 1:3. The use seen here (also Mark 7:2; Mark 7:5; Rom 14:14; Heb 10:29; Rev 21:27; Acts 10:28; Acts 11:8), like Latin vulgaris is unknown in ancient Greek. Here the idea is made plain by the addition of (unclean), ceremonially unclean, of course. We have the same double use in our word “common.” See on Mr 7:18f. where Mark adds the remarkable participle (making all meats clean), evidently from Peter who recalls this vision. Peter had been reared from childhood to make the distinction between clean and unclean food and this new proposal even from the Lord runs against all his previous training. He did not see that some of God’s plans for the Jews could be temporary. This symbol of the sheet was to show Peter ultimately that Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews. At this moment he is in spiritual and intellectual turmoil.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Not so [] . Stronger : by no means. “With that simple and audacious self – confidence which in his (Peter’s) character was so singularly mingled with fits of timidity and depression, he boldly corrects the voice which orders him, and reminds the divine Interlocutor that he must, so to speak, have made an oversight” (Farrar, ” Life and Works of Paul “). Compare Mt 16:22.
Common [] . Unholy.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But Peter said, Not so, Lord;- (ho de Petros eipen
Medamos, kurie) “Then Peter replied, no, not at all Master,” or never Lord. It took this vision, message and experience for Peter’s conversion to witness to the Gentiles and to strengthen the brethren,” Luk 22:32; Act 11:2-18.
2) “For I have never eaten any thing,” (hoti oudepote ephagen pan) “Because never at all have I eaten anything at all,” as a keeper of the Mosaic or Levitical law with its dietary rites, which had been done away with the fulfillment of the Law, Col 2:14-17; Rom 14:3; Rom 4:14-23.
3) “That is common or unclean,” (koinon kai akatharton) “That exists as common (profane) or unclean,” according to the Hebrew laws of eating, that is hygienically unclean, as prescribed or restricted for flesh food under the Law, Deu 14:3-21; Isa 66:17; Eze 4:14.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
14. Not so, Lord. This is the voice of him which doth as well refuse, as also object to God his own commandment; for he is afraid, for good causes, to touch that which he knew was forbidden him in the law of God, (Lev 11:21, etc.) Therefore he objecteth to God the law which he himself made, lest he should break the same unadvisedly. There was a certain show of repugnancy between the law and the vision; therefore Peter is not hasty, but desireth first to have his doubt dissolved before he depart from observing the law. Yet it is a strange matter why Peter resisted more in meats than did Abraham in killing his son; for Abraham [might have] had more things to object, (Gen 22:9.) I dare not here say that that befell Peter which is too common among men, to stand more about outward and small matters than about the chief points of the law; I rather make that answer which is out of doubt, that Abraham’s mind was so persuaded, and that he was furnished with such power of the Spirit, that he overcame with 1ofty and heroical fortitude all those things which might have hindered him. But the Spirit of God wrought slenderly, (671) in Peter; whereby we are taught that every small or light thing doth cause us to doubt, unless the Lord do furnish us with counsel and constancy to overcome all fear. Yet Peter dealeth very godly and very religiously, in that being in doubt amidst divers cogitations, he dare do nothing until it better appear what he ought to follow. Common signifieth in this place profane. For because the Lord (as we have said) had chosen the Jews to be a peculiar people, he had prescribed unto them this rite and manner of living, that it might distinguish them from the profane Gentiles. Therefore, whatsoever the Gentiles did use contrary to the rule of the law, that did they call common, because there was nothing pure or holy but that which God had appointed for the use of his people.
(671) “ Lente,” slowly.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(14) Not so, Lord . . .The emphatic resistance even to a voice from heaven is strikingly in harmony with the features of St. Peters character, as portrayed in the Gospels, with the Be it far from thee, Lord, when he heard of the coming Passion (Mat. 16:22), with Thou shalt never wash my feet, in Joh. 13:8. He had been taught that that which goeth into the mouth cannot defile the man (Mar. 7:15), but he had not taken in that truth in its fulness, either in its literal or symbolic meaning.
Any thing that is common or unclean.Common is used, as in Mar. 7:2, in the sense of defiled or impure, that which excludes the idea of consecration to a special service.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
14. Unclean Even under the patriarchal dispensation the distinction of animals into clean and unclean was religiously established. (Gen 7:2.) Man, indeed, by nature makes a distinction. Some animals are so repugnant to human tastes and health that we are disgusted at the very thought of eating them. Early in the divine education of man God so used this natural distinction which he had made, as the basis of a moral discrimination, as to impress the minds of fallen men with the difference between the pure and the impure in spirit and life, and between the righteous and the wicked among men. And when God set apart the posterity of Abraham from the idolatries and licentiousness into which the nations were sinking, he made such a distinction of meats as separated Jew and heathen from the same table, and thus struck out one of the most powerful points of union between men. Thus was Israel alone amid the nations; the lonely maintainer of the true God until the time of the God incarnate should come, and then the distinction should be abolished, and all the world be called to the knowledge of Jehovah.
Common or unclean ”One term,” says Grotius, “defines the other. For the swine (Lev 11:7) is called unclean, and the same ( 1Ma 10:50 ; 1Ma 10:65 ) is called common, that is, commonly used by Gentiles, a people not sanctified to God. Seneca narrates that ‘In the time of the Emperor Tiberius foreign religious systems were forbidden at Rome, and the test was abstinence from certain animals.’”
‘But Peter said, “Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean.” ’
Peter responded firmly, and possibly a little indignantly (being Peter). ‘Never, Lord,’ he said, ‘for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.’ It was not something even to be considered. The laws of uncleanness were so imbedded in him that he did not even consider the fact that if God told him to eat, then he was free to do so. He was just offended that God could think him capable of breaking the laws of uncleanness. His sense of ‘uncleanness’ might well have been heightened because he was having to be extra careful when staying at a tanner’s house. Perhaps, he might have thought, God was telling him that he had not been careful enough, and that this was therefore a warning?
Act 10:14-16 . Peter correctly recognises in the summons . , Act 10:13 , the allowance of selection at his pleasure among all the animals, by which, consequently, the eating of the unclean without distinction was permitted to him. Hence, and not because only unclean animals were seen in the vessel, his strongly declining ! This is the address to the to him unknown author of the voice, not to Christ (Schwegler, Zeller).
Concerning the animals which the Jews were forbidden to eat, see Lev 11 ; Deu 14:1 ff.; Ewald, Alterth. p. 194 ff.; Saalschtz, Mos. B. p. 251 ff.
.] for never ate I anything common or unclean (the Talmudic ), i.e. for any profane thing I have always left uneaten. does not stand for (which Lachm. and Tisch. read, after A B , min. VSS. Clem. Or.; perhaps correctly, see Act 11:8 ), but appends for the exhaustion of the idea another synonymous expression. Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 277; Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xl. f. = ; the opposite of (Eze 42:20 ).
] and a voice (not , because here other words were heard) came again the second time to him ( , pleonastically circumstantial; see on Mat 26:42 ; comp. on Joh 4:54 ).
, ] what God has cleansed, make not thou common (unclean). The miraculous appearance with the divine voice (Act 10:13 ) had done away the Levitical uncleanness of the animals in question; they were now divinely cleansed; and thus Peter ought not, by his refusal to obey that divine bidding, to invest them with the character of what is unholy to transfer them into the category of the (Rom 14:14 ). This were man’s doing in opposition to God’s deed.
] for thrice, which “ad confirmationem valuit” (Calvin); , denotes the terminus ad quem. Bernhardy, p. 252. Comp. , Herod, i. 86; Xen. Anab. vi. 4. 16; and Wetstein.
The object aimed at in the whole vision was the symbolical divine announcement that the hitherto subsisting distinction between clean and unclean men (that hedge between Jews and Gentiles!) was to cease in Christianity, as being destined for all men without distinction of nation (Act 10:34-35 ). But in what relation does the stand to the likewise divine institution of the Levitical laws about food? This is not answered by reference to “the effected and accomplished redemption, which is regarded as a restitution of the whole creation” (Olshausen), for this restoration is only promised for the world-period commencing with the Parousia (Act 3:20 ; Mat 19:28 : Rom 8:19 ff.); but rather by pointing out that the institution of those laws of food was destined only for the duration of the old theocracy. They were a divine institution for the particular people of God, with a view to separate them from the nations of the world; their abolition could not therefore but be willed by God, when the time was fully come at which the idea of the theocracy was to be realized through Christ in the whole of humanity (Act 10:35 ; Rom 3 .; Gal 3:28 ; Col 3:11 ; Joh 10:16 ). Comp. Mat 15:17-18 . The abolition therefore does not conflict with Mat 5:17 , but belongs to the fulfillment of the law effected by Christ, by which the distinction of clean and unclean was removed from the Levitical domain and (comp. Rom 2:28-29 ) raised into the sphere of the moral idea. See also on Rom 15:14 ; Mat 5:17 .
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Ver. 14. Common or unclean ] By commonness there is contracted an uncleanness. It is hard to deal in the world, and not be defiled with the corruption that is in the world through lust.
14. ] Peter rightly understands the command as giving him free choice of all the creatures shewn to him. We cannot infer hence that the sheet contained unclean animals only . It was a mixture of clean and unclean, the aggregate, therefore, being unclean .
] So Cornelius to the angel, Act 10:4 . It is here addressed to the unknown heavenly speaker.
On the clean and unclean beasts, &c., see Lev 11 .
Act 10:14 . : absit (LXX for ), 1Sa 20:2 ; 1Sa 22:15 (Weiss). : Weiss refers to Act 1:24 , and takes it as meaning Jehovah, but others refer the expression here to Christ; the next verse shows us that there was still the same element of self-will in the Apostle which had misled the Peter of the Gospels. : the words of strong negation, characteristic of the vehement and impulsive Peter Hebraistic, cf. Exo 20:10 , Jdg 13:4 , and in N.T., Mat 24:22 , Luk 1:37 , Rom 3:12 , 1Co 1:29 ; Simcox, Language of the N. T. , pp. 72, 73, and Blass, Gram. , p. 174. = ; 1Ma 1:62 , opposed to , Lev 10:10 , cf. Eze 22:26 , often used in N.T. for unclean, cf. Mar 7:2 . , Lev 20:25 , of clean and unclean animals; in 1 Macc. above is used, as ver. 63 shows, for defilement from meats.
Not so = By no means. Greek. medamos.
have . . . eaten = ate.
never = not even at any time. Greek. oudepote.
unclean. Greek. akathartos. The previous twenty-one occurrences all apply to evil spirits. Here the reference is to the ceremonial uncleanness of the Levitical law.
14.] Peter rightly understands the command as giving him free choice of all the creatures shewn to him. We cannot infer hence that the sheet contained unclean animals only. It was a mixture of clean and unclean,-the aggregate, therefore, being unclean.
] So Cornelius to the angel, Act 10:4. It is here addressed to the unknown heavenly speaker.
On the clean and unclean beasts, &c., see Leviticus 11.
Act 10:14. , by no means) A trance leaves a man liberty in respect to that particular thing which is vividly set before him: ch. Act 22:19. But besides, it is a sign of the power being strengthened, even though the senses are bound, for example, in a dream, to maintain ones conscientiousness. The first objection started by a man, when GOD orders something difficult, sometimes has an indulgence, ch. Act 22:19-20 : but there ought to be no repetition of it: Joh 13:8 : Exo 4:13; Deu 3:26; Eze 4:14. From the delay (reluctance) of Peter, the will of GOD shines forth the more clearly. And on that account the more easily could Peter bear the doubts (hesitation) of the brethren: ch. Act 11:2-3, They that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.-, never) He who has once done anything, more easily repeats his act. See therefore that thou doest no evil for the first time (even once). Peter had always been observant of the law.
Not: Gen 19:18, Exo 10:11, Mat 16:22, Mat 25:9, Luk 1:60
for: Lev 11:1-17, Lev 20:25, Deu 14:1-29, Eze 4:14, Eze 44:31
Reciprocal: Gen 48:18 – Not so Exo 22:31 – neither Lev 11:2 – General Jos 22:19 – unclean Jdg 13:4 – eat not Psa 141:4 – and let me Isa 52:11 – touch Dan 1:8 – defile Hos 9:3 – but Mat 15:11 – that which goeth Mat 16:7 – It is Mar 7:2 – defiled Mar 7:15 – nothing Rom 14:14 – unclean Heb 13:9 – not with
4
Act 10:14. Peter took the language of the Lord to be used literally of these living creatures, and that perhaps He was putting him to the test. Common means food that the common classes of mankind used.
Act 10:14. Not so, Lord. This expostulation, so to speak, addressed by St. Peter to the Deity, is quite according to the analogy of Divine visions recorded in Scripture (comp. especially St. Pauls expostulation in the Temple (Act 22:19), when he is required to quit Jerusalem).
I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. St. Peters own phrase, in the account of the transaction, given afterwards at Jerusalem, is, Nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. St. Peter had always lived as a conscientious and scrupulous Jew. The command was a contradiction to the whole previous tenor of his lite. No greater shock to this Hebrew apostle can be imagined than to be told to assuage his hunger by eating swines flesh or foul reptiles. It is recorded in the Second Book of Maccabees (2Ma 6:18, 2Ma 7:1) that Hebrews submitted to death that they might escape such an indignity. And this distinction between clean and unclean beasts was correlative with, and representative of, the Jewish distinction between the Hebrew nation and all other nations. The two prejudices (if this term may be applied to what rested, in a great degree, on Divine appointment) might be expected to collapse together. At present, indeed, Peter was in a state of utter wonder and perplexity. A word, however, had been spoken to him, which, in the progress of subsequent instruction, was to become a revelation.
See notes on verse 9
Verse 14
Common or unclean; animals forbidden by the Mosaic law.
10:14 {2} But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
(2) Peter learns daily in the knowledge of the benefit of Christ, yea, even after he had received the Holy Spirit.
Peter resisted the Lord Jesus’ command strongly but politely (Gr. Medamos, kurie), as Ezekiel had done when he received similar instructions from God (Eze 4:14). Peter may have remembered and recognized the voice as that of Jesus. [Note: Bruce, Commentary on . . ., p. 220.] He had either not understood or not remembered Jesus’ teaching in which He had declared all foods clean (Mar 7:14-19, cf. Rom 14:14). Peter’s "No, Lord," is, of course, an inconsistent contradiction. Nevertheless Peter’s response was very consistent with his impulsive personality and former conduct. He had said, "No," to the Lord before (cf. Mat 16:22; Joh 13:8). His reaction to this instruction reminds us of Peter’s similar extreme reactions on other earlier occasions (e.g., Joh 13:8-9; Joh 21:7). Saul’s response to the voice from heaven on the Damascus road had not been negative (Act 9:5-8).
"The cliché, ’If He is not Lord of all, He is not Lord at all’ is simply that-a cliché and not a biblical or theological truth. He can be Lord of aspects of my life while I withhold other areas of my life from His control. Peter illustrated that as clearly as anyone that day on the rooftop when the Lord asked him to kill and eat unclean animals. He said, ’By no means, Lord’ (Act 10:14). At that point was Christ Lord of all of Peter? Certainly not. Then must we conclude that He was not Lord at all in relation to Peter’s life? I think not." [Note: Ryrie, So Great . . ., p. 73.]
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)