Biblia

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 10:15

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 10:15

And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.

15. And the [a] voice spake unto him again the second time ] coming from heaven as the first voice had come. There is no verb in the original, and it would perhaps be better to supply “came” rather than “spake.”

What God hath cleansed, that call [ make ] not thou common ] The heaven-sent voice revokes what had been enjoined from heaven at the giving of the Law. The power which made the restriction can remove it. That it would be removed Christ had intimated (Mat 15:11), “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man.” The old dispensation is now to give place to the new, and Peter is taught by the vision that men are not to make such distinctions and separations for themselves. “For meat destroy not the work of God” (Rom 14:20).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

What God hath cleansed – What God has pronounced or declared pure. If God has commanded you to do a thing, it is not impure or wrong. Perhaps Peter would suppose that the design of this vision was to instruct him that the distinction between clean and unclean food, as recognized by the Jews, was about to be abolished, Act 10:17. But the result showed that it had a higher and more important design. It was to show him that they who had been esteemed by the Jews as unclean or profane – the entire Gentile world – might now be admitted to similar privileges with the Jews. That barrier was robe broken down, and the whole world was to be admitted to the same fellowship and privileges in the gospel. See Eph 2:14; Gal 3:28. It was also true that the ceremonial laws of the Jews in regard to clean and unclean beasts was to pass away, though this was not directly taught in this vision. But when once the barrier was removed that separated the Jews and Gentiles, all the laws which were founded on such a distinction, and which were framed to keep up such a distinction, passed away of course. The ceremonial laws of the Jews were designed solely to keep up the distinction between them and other nations. When the distinction was abolished; when other nations were to be admitted to the same privileges, the laws which were made to keep up such a difference received their death-blow, and expired of course. For it is a maxim of all law, that when the reason why a law was made ceases to exist, the law becomes obsolete. Yet it was not easy to convince the Jews that their laws ceased to be binding. This point the apostles labored to establish; and from this point arose most of the difficulties between the Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity. See Acts 15; and Rom. 1415:

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 15. What God hath cleansed] God, who made at first the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, has a right to remove it, whenever and by whatever means he pleases: he, therefore, who made the distinction, for wise purposes, between the clean and the unclean, now pronounces all to be clean. He had authority to do the first; he has authority to do the last. God has purposed that the Gentiles shall have the Gospel preached to them: what he therefore has cleansed, “that call not thou common.”

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Do not make in thy esteem, or practice, as common, that is, polluted. The Jews did imagine, that by unclean creatures were meant the Gentiles, as by clean creatures they would have themselves to be understood; howsoever, they opposed common unto holy; indeed a holy man is (as they called him) a singular man: it was God that cleansed Cornelius, turning him from idolatry to the worship of the true God, from darkness unto light.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

15. What God hath cleansed, thatcall not thou commonThe ceremonial distinctions are at an end,and Gentiles, ceremonially separated from the chosen people (Ac10:28), and debarred from that access to God in the visibleordinances of His Church which they enjoyed, are now on a perfectequality with them.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And the voice spake unto him again the second time,…. The following words,

what God hath cleansed; that is, hath pronounced clean and lawful to be used, as he now had all sorts of food, Mt 15:11.

[that] call not thou common; or pronounce it to be unholy or unclean, and unlawful to be used: and the same holds good of men, as well as things; for as hereby the Lord instructed Peter, that there was nothing of itself common, or unclean, and unfit for use; so that no man, not any Gentile, Barbarian, Scythian, or be he who he would, was common or unclean, and his company to be avoided as such. Distinctions both of men and meats were now to be laid aside; and the Jews themselves own, that what is now unclean, will be clean in the time to come, or the times of the Messiah; they say f,

“every beast which is unclean in this world, the holy blessed God , cleanses it, in the time to come, (the times of the Messiah,) as they were at first clean to the sons of Noah Ge 9:3, wherefore, as the herb was clean to all, and as the beasts were clean to the sons of Noah; so also in the time to come he will loose what he has bound, or forbidden.”

And particularly they observe, that a swine is call from , “to return”, because the Lord will return it unto Israel. g

f R. Moses Haddarsan in Galatin. l. 11. c. 12. & Bereshit Rabba in Pugio Fidei, c. 12. sect. 1. g Abarbinel Rosh Amana, c. 12. fol. 18. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Make not thou common ( ). Note emphatic position of (thou). Do thou stop making common what God cleansed (). The idiom of with the present active imperative means precisely this. Peter had just called “common” what God had invited him to slay and eat.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Call not thou common [ ] . The thought goes deeper than merely styling “common.” Lit., do not thou defile. Do not profane it by regarding and calling it common. Rev., “make not thou common.”

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

–

1) “And the voice spake unto him again the second time,” (kai phone palin ek deutetou pros auton) “And a voice came forth to him again a second time,” a voice from heaven, saying, or instructing as in Act 10:13. It appears that Peter only then realized the voice as that of his Lord speaking directly to him, as he had preached, Mar 7:17; Mar 7:23.

2) “What God hath cleansed,” (he ho theos ekatharisen) “Whatever things God cleansed,” or whatever God has cleansed, pronounced to be clean, Mat 15:11; 1Co 8:7-9; Rom 14:14; Rom 14:17; 1Ti 4:4.

3) “That call not thou common, (su me koinou) “You (are) not to treat as unclean,” or to defy God’s declaration, or mandate, Joh 4:9; Act 15:8-11; 1Co 10:25. That which entered the belly did not defile Jew or Gentile. It was the fruit of the carnal, covetous, selfish heart that defiled every man, as afore certified by our Lord, Mat 15:19; Luk 11:41. As surely as the law of Moses abolished compulsory compliance with the dietary Levitical Laws, so did it abolish any further restriction of moral, ethical, or physical uncleanness or cleanness of one race above or over another in relationship to their salvation, worship, and service to God, Act 15:8-11; Eph 2:13-22.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

15. God hath made clean. He speaketh of meats; but this sentence must be extended unto all parts of the life. It is word for word, That which God hath made clean, do not thou make profane; but the sense is, It is not for us to allow or condemn any thing; but as we stand and fall by the judgment of God alone, so is he judge of all things, (Rom 14:4.) As touching meats, after the abrogating of the law, God pronounceth that they are all pure and clean. If, on the other side, there start up a mortal man, making a new difference, forbidding certain, he taketh unto himself the authority and power of God by sacrilegious boldness. Of this stamp were the old heretics, Montanus, Priscillianus, the Donatists, the Tatians, and all the Encratites. Afterwards the Pope, to the end he might bind all those sects in a bundle, made a law concerning meats. And there is no cause why the patrons of this impiety should babble that they do not imagine any uncleanness in meats, but that men are forbidden to eat flesh upon certain days, to tame the flesh. For seeing they eat such meats as are most fit, both for delicacy and also for riot, why do they abstain from eating bacon, as from some great offense, save only because they imagine that that is unclean and polluted which is forbidden by the law of their idol? With like pride doth the tyranny of the Pope rage in all parts of life; for there is nothing wherein he layeth not snares to entangle the miserable consciences of men. But let us trust to the heavenly oracle, and freely despise all his inhibitions. We must always ask the mouth of the Lord, that we may thereby be assured what we may lawfully do; forasmuch as it was not lawful even for Peter to make that profane which was lawful by the Word of God.

Furthermore, this is a place of great importance to beat down the frowardness of men, which they use too much in perverse judgments. There is no man almost which doth not grant liberty to himself to judge of other men’s doings. Now, as we are churlish and malicious, we lean more toward the worse part, so that we take from God that which is his. This voice alone ought to suffice to correct such boldness, That it is not lawful for us to make this or that unclean, but that this power belongeth to God alone. And also in these words is given us to understand, that the Jews were not therefore the holy people of the Lord, because they excelled through their own worthiness, but only by reason of God’s adoption. Now, after that God had received the Gentiles into the society of the covenant, they have all equal right.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(15) What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.In the framework of the vision, the clean and the unclean beasts stood on the same footing, were let down from heaven in the same sheet. That had purified them from whatever taint had adhered to them under the precepts of the Law. In the interpretation of the vision, all that belongs to humanity had been taken up into heaven; first, when mans nature was assumed by the Eternal Word in the Incarnation (Joh. 1:14), and, secondly, when that nature had been raised in the Ascension to the heaven of heavens, sitting on the right hand of God (Act. 7:56; Mar. 16:19).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

15. Call not thou common In the expressive Greek the word for call common is a verb: What God has cleansed common thou not.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And a voice came to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed, do not treat as common.” ’

But immediately there came a word of rebuke. (We might even paraphrase as, ‘What God has cleansed, how dare you call common?’) What was before him had been given to him by God. Surely he would recognise that anything that God gave him would have been cleansed, and was not to be seen as ‘common’ (shorthand for ‘common and unclean’ – Act 10:14), for it would have been sanctified by God. It was now therefore not common but holy.

This was unquestionably intended to make him think. On the one hand were years of training and regulation. On the other was the undoubted fact that if God had provided something which He had cleansed, it must be acceptable, and fit to eat and could surely not cause uncleanness. It put him in a quandary.

We should note that this is not strictly dealing with the question of the Christian attitude towards ‘unclean foods’. Peter is not said to have eaten of them, and God is not saying that He has cleansed ‘everything’ and that therefore everything can be eaten. What Peter had been called on to eat was a direct gift from God, prepared for him by God, and it was thus holy. God’s purpose was to make him realise that anything, and any man, whom He Himself is demonstrated to have cleansed, could not be looked on as unclean.

There is no suggestion here that He has cleansed all foods. Only those in the sheet were cleansed. But it is clear that the very idea behind it does weaken the argument concerning the uncleanness of certain foods. It confirms that they are not inherently unclean, for they can be made holy. Compare Jesus’ teaching in Mar 7:14-23.

This sheet full of such a variety of creatures, all of which had been ‘sanctified’ by God out of creation in spite of what they were, was an apt picture of the whole variety of people whom God would call out of the world and sanctify to Himself in the Christian church. Peter would never forget the lesson that once sanctified all are precious to God.

It would take time for Peter to appreciate the full significance of this vision. His previous understanding had been that God had redeemed Israel. Now he was being faced with the fact that God had cleansed large numbers of Gentiles through the cross whose names were written in heaven (Luk 10:20) and was ready to receive them also in the one nation which would replace Israel (Mat 21:43) as he later enunciates in his first letter (1Pe 1:1-2; 1Pe 1:18-21; 1Pe 2:9-10; 1Pe 4:3-5)

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Act 10:15. What God hath cleansed, &c. The single proposition is, “That which God hath cleansed, is notcommon or impure.” But no one who reads this history, can doubt of its having this double sense; first, that the distinction between clean and unclean meats was to be abolished: secondly, that the Gentiles were to be called into the church of Christ. Here then the true sense of this passage is not one, but two; and yet the intention or meaning is not on this account the least obscured, or lost, or rendered unintelligible.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Ver. 15. That call not thou common ] Or profane thou not, . See Trapp on “ Act 10:14 “

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

15. ] These weighty words have more than one application. They reveal what was needed for the occasion, in a figure: God letting down from heaven clean and unclean alike, Jew and Gentile, represented that He had made of one blood all nations to dwell on the face of all the earth: God having purified these, signified that the distinction was now abolished which was ‘added because of transgressions’ ( Gal 3:19 ), and all regarded in his eyes as pure for the sake of His dear Son . But the literal truth of the representation was also implied; that the same distinctions between the animals intended for use as food were now done away, and free range allowed to men, as their lawful wants and desires invite them, over the whole creation of God: that creation itself having been purified and rendered clean for use by the satisfaction of Christ . The same truth which is asserted by the heavenly voice in Peter’s vision, is declared Eph 1:10 ; Col 1:20 ; 1Ti 4:4-5 . Only we must be careful not to confound this restitution with the of ch. Act 3:21 ; see notes there.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 10:15 . The last word of Act 10:14 carries us back to the thought of the teaching of his Master, which St. Peter had evidently not yet realised, cf. Mar 7:19 . Mark alone draws the inference, “ this He said , making all meats clean,” which, compared with this verse, makes another link of interest between St. Mark and St. Peter. . (only here and in Act 11:10 , in classics ), to emphasise the command, cf. Gen 41:32 , “ad confirmationem valuit” Calvin. , declarative: “de coelo enim nil nisi purum demittitur” Bengel. : “make not thou common,” R.V., “as though man by his harsh verdict actually created uncleanness where God had already bestowed His cleansing mercy in Christ” (Rendall). We cannot limit the words, as has been attempted, to the single case of Cornelius, or refer them only to the removal of the distinction between clean and unclean meats.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

the second time. Literally from (Greek. ek. App-104.) a second (time).

What = The things which.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

15.] These weighty words have more than one application. They reveal what was needed for the occasion, in a figure: God letting down from heaven clean and unclean alike, Jew and Gentile,-represented that He had made of one blood all nations to dwell on the face of all the earth: God having purified these, signified that the distinction was now abolished which was added because of transgressions (Gal 3:19),-and all regarded in his eyes as pure for the sake of His dear Son. But the literal truth of the representation was also implied;-that the same distinctions between the animals intended for use as food were now done away, and free range allowed to men, as their lawful wants and desires invite them, over the whole creation of God: that creation itself having been purified and rendered clean for use by the satisfaction of Christ. The same truth which is asserted by the heavenly voice in Peters vision, is declared Eph 1:10; Col 1:20; 1Ti 4:4-5. Only we must be careful not to confound this restitution with the of ch. Act 3:21; see notes there.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 10:15. , hath cleansed) hath made and declared to be clean. For nothing save what is clean (pure) is let down from heaven. Peter continued to remember well this verb: ch. Act 15:9. Comp. as to Paul, ch. Act 13:2, note.-, thou) who art less than GOD: Act 10:26, ch. Act 11:17.- , do not thou call common) There is no third or middle term between pure (clean) and common.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

What: Act 10:28, Act 11:9, Act 15:9, Act 15:20, Act 15:29, Mat 15:11, Rev 14:14-17, Rev 14:20, 1Co 10:25, Gal 2:12, Gal 2:13, 1Ti 4:3-5, Tit 1:15, Heb 9:9, Heb 9:10

Reciprocal: Lev 7:19 – General Jos 22:19 – unclean Zec 14:20 – shall there Mar 7:2 – defiled Luk 11:41 – all Rom 14:14 – unclean Rom 14:20 – All

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

5

Act 10:15. What God hat% cleansed is explained at verses 12, 13.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 10:15. A second time. The mention of this fact is a pointed part of his statement at Jerusalem (Act 11:9), and he adds there that this second voice came from heaven.

What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. The peremptory command now becomes the emphatic statement of a principle. This is a Dew step in the instruction which St. Peter was receiving, a further preparation for that which was to follow. It is incumbent on us to observe that there is a distinct reference here to a Divine ordinance. It is God (hat made all things pure. Hence we are not to regard them as impure. We are at once reminded here of certain words recorded in the Gospel history, when Christ Himself said that that which entereth into a mans mouth cannot defile him. But it is very important to observe that in that passage, as given by St. Mark (Mar 7:19), the sense is, this Christ said, pronouncing all meats clean the correct reading being , not . This is noted by Dean Burgon (Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 179), who says of this part of the sentence, It does really seem to be no part of the Divine discourse, but the Evangelists inspired comment on the Saviours words. The Lord Jesus did actually, by this discourse of His, make all things pure. And it is further noted that the apostle to whom these words were spoken at Joppa (and the use of is identical in the two cases) was the apostle who directed St. Mark in the composition of his Gospel. Can we doubt that those words which he had heard from his Saviours lips flashed into St. Peters memory, when at Joppa he heard that command from heaven, or at least that the recollection of them came when he reflected on what he had heard? This thought is forcibly put before us by Canon Farrar (Life and Work of St. Paul, vol. i. p. 276), who has dealt with the matter more fully in the Expositor for 1876. As to the fact of the reading in St. Mark, see a note by Dr. Field in his edition of Chrysostoms Homilies on St. Matthew, iii. 112. It is further to be observed that in St. Matthews account of the Saviours discourse, we are told that it was Peter who afterwards in the house asked the meaning of what the Lord had said.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Act 10:15-16. And the voice spake the second time When God commands a strange, or seemingly improper thing, the first objection frequently finds pardon. But it ought not to be repeated. This doubt and delay of Peter, however, had several good effects. Hereby the will of God, on this important point, was made more evident and incontestable. And Peter also, having been so slow of belief himself, could the more easily bear the doubting of his brethren, Act 11:2. What God hath cleansed By such a declaration of his will, in commanding thee to eat them; that call not thou common But readily submit thyself to his directions, acknowledging the power of the great Lawgiver to change his precepts as he shall see fit. This was done thrice To make the deeper impression on Peters mind. That is, the sheet was drawn up a little way, and let down again a second time, and so the third time, with the same call to him, Kill and eat. But whether Peters refusal was repeated the second and third time is not certain; we may suppose it was not, since his objection had the first time received such a satisfactory answer.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

See notes on verse 9

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

10:15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] {l} call not thou common.

(l) Do not consider them to be unprofitable.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Peter’s Jewish cultural prejudices were overriding the Word of God in his thinking. For this reason God repeated the vision two more times so Peter would be sure he understood God’s command correctly.

"The threefold repetition might also remind Peter of an interview on a familiar beach [cf. Joh 21:15-17]." [Note: Blaiklock, p. 96.]

"The message pervading the whole [of Peter’s vision] . . . is that the disciples are to receive the Gentiles, not before cleansing, but after God has cleansed them as He will do later through the cleansing Gospel which Peter will share with them the next day." [Note: Harm, p. 35.]

"The particular application had to do with nullifying Jewish dietary laws for Christians in accord with Jesus’ remarks on the subject in Mar 7:17-23. But Peter was soon to learn that the range of the vision’s message extended much more widely, touching directly on Jewish-Gentile relations as he had known them and on those relations in ways he could never have anticipated." [Note: Longenecker, p. 388.]

I wonder if Peter remembered Jonah as he thought about the mission God had given him of preaching to the Gentiles. God had also called that prophet to carry a message of salvation to the Gentiles in Nineveh, but Jonah had fled from that very city, Joppa, to escape his calling. Now Peter found himself in the same position.

"Because Jonah disobeyed God, the Lord sent a storm that caused the Gentile sailors to fear. Because Peter obeyed the Lord, God sent the ’wind of the Spirit’ to the Gentiles and they experienced great joy and peace." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:443.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)