Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 10:28
And he said unto them, Ye know how that 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.
28. Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing, &c.] It is said expressly by Maimonides, Hilechoth Rozeakh, &c. xii. 7, “It is forbidden to a Jew to be alone with heathens, because they are suspected of (lightly) shedding blood, nor must he associate with them on the road.” And in the Midrash Rabbah on Leviticus, cap. 20 ( ad fin.), there is an interesting example of the sort of ceremonial defilement which association with the heathen might bring about, “It happened that Shimeon the son of Kimkhith (who was high-priest) went out to speak with the King of the Arabians, and there came a fleck of spittle from the King’s mouth upon the priest’s garment and so he was unclean; and his brother Judah went in and served instead of him in the high-priest’s office. That day their mother saw two of her sons high-priests.” The Apostle speaks of the prohibition as a thing well known to those who heard him, and the action of the messengers of Cornelius in standing outside the house of Simon and calling out some one to question in the open air shews that they were aware of the dislike of the Jews to associate with Gentiles. We have evidence that this dislike was well known wherever the Jews resided from the words of Juvenal (xiv. 103), “Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti.” So Tacitus ( Hist. Act 10:5), “separati epulis, discreti cubilibus.”
to keep company ] Lit. “to join himself.” The word is the same as in the command to Philip (Act 8:29), “Go near and join thyself to this chariot;” and signifies intimate intercourse. The ordinary dealings of life must constantly have forced Jews to be in the company of Gentiles, but it was to be avoided if possible.
but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean ] The Spirit’s command “Go with them doubting nothing, for I have sent them” has taught Peter how he is to interpret the figure shewn to him in his vision.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
It is an unlawful thing – This was not explicitly enjoined by Moses, but it seemed to be implied in his institutions, and was, at any rate, the common understanding of the Jews. The design was to keep them a separate people. To do this, Moses forbade alliances by contract, or marriage, with the surrounding nations, which were idolatrous. See Lev 18:24-30; Deu 7:3-12; compare Ezr 9:11-12. This command the Jews perverted, and explained it as referring to contact of all kinds, even to the exercise of friendly offices and commercial transactions. Compare Joh 4:9.
Of another nation – Greek: another tribe. It refers here to all who were not Jews.
God hath showed me – Compare Act 15:8-9. He had showed him by the vision, Act 10:11-12.
Any man common or unclean – See the notes on Act 10:14. That no man was to be regarded as excluded from the opportunity of salvation, or was to be despised and abhorred. The gospel was to be preached to all; the barrier between Jews and Gentiles was broken down, and all were to be regarded as capable of being saved.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Act 10:28
A man that is a Jew.
The Jew
I can conceive of no object more profoundly interesting than this–a man that is a Jew! All that is venerable in antiquity, sacred in religion, rich in story, sublime in poetry, cleaves to this extraordinary race. But for such a man infidelity would have lost one of the most unanswerable proofs of her falsehood and her folly.
I. His common claims as a man. A recent pope was passing through Rome; a Jew, fallen in a fit, lay prostrate on the pavement; the people who saw him, like the priest and the Levite, passed by on the other side; but the sovereign pontiff, alighting from his carriage, ran to his help. He is a Jew! they cried, as if in horror of a contact so contaminating. He is a man! cried the pontiff; and, like the good Samaritan, he hastened to his relief, saw him safely conducted to his home, and sent his own physician to attend him.
1. He is a man as well as a Jew, although he is a Jew, and all the claims that humanity can present to the sympathy of the species belong to him. He, too, may make the appeal, so long urged in vain by the enslaved African, Am I not a man and a brother? You owe to him the performance of a brothers part; and if you fail to render it the voice of your brothers blood will cry against you.
2. He Is a man, the offspring of the same parent, the workmanship of the same Creator, as fearfully and wonderfully made as you are, the same life blood flows in his veins, the same heart throbs in his breast, and to all the ills to which flesh is heir, he is subject as well as you.
3. That man that is a Jew has a soul, precious as yours. Gods breath inspired it; His Spirit endowed it; and He who has emphatically said, All souls are Mine, claims it as His own. Think of the faculties with which it is endowed, its vast capacity of happiness or misery, the perilous circumstances in which it is placed under the curse and condemning sentence of Gods violated law, and the dread eternity it is destined to inherit if it pass into it unforgiven.
4. And was not the same precious blood shed for its redemption? On what other ground than this can you seek with any degree of propriety, or with any hope of success, the salvation of the Jews? And if it be so precious, what an argument does that consideration furnish for our best efforts to promote the salvation of the soul for whose redemption even that was not esteemed a price too great.
II. The claims peculiar to him as a Jew. He belongs to a race–
1. Venerable in antiquity. Who can boast of a heraldry or of a history like theirs? A heraldry whose emblazonment is from heaven, and a history whose records are written by inspired pens. The origin of other nations is veiled in obscurity and so blended with fable that it is hard to separate fact from fiction. But here is a people, all whose story is drawn out in lines of accuracy and in characters of truth. And is it not an affecting spectacle to behold a people, thus hoary with the accumulation of ages, treated with contumely, and left to perish?
2. Which once enjoyed the special tokens of the Divine favour. Now, indeed, they are trodden under foot of the Gentiles. But they were a great nation once. They, and they alone, could boast a pure theocracy, and laws given from heaven. Are a people, then, once thus signally owned and honoured by God, to be regarded with indifference or contempt? A people too, whose abandonment by God is not final, and whose restoration to His favour shall assuredly come. I am not sure that the tardy progress of the Christian cause may not be, in some measure, attributed to the unconcern which Christians have manifested towards Jews.
3. To which we are laid under the deepest obligation. There is nothing great or good that we possess but we are indebted for it to the Jews. The best of books, the best of gifts, we owe to them–the sacred volume and the Saviour of the world. Who is the most ancient and the most authentic of all historians–but a Jew? What poets can compare with theirs? Beloved they must be, for the fathers sake if not for their own; and though we may well despair of ever paying the debt due to them, still, by our efforts for their welfare, we will testify that we are not altogether unconscious of or unwilling to acknowledge it. And think how long this debt has been contracting, while scarcely a fraction of the interest has been paid. Societies there are expending hundreds of thousands on the distant heathen, but how few there are interested in the restoration of the lost sheep of the house of Israel!
4. To whose conversion prodigious advantage must accrue. If the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness? The Jews, in the event of their conversion, will become the most zealous and successful missionaries; while the Church herself, aroused by this event to a life and energy and unanimity unknown to former times, will take the field against the common foe in numbers compared with which all present figures will appear contemptible. Who can go forth and announce the faithful saying, worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and add, with the same emphasis as the Jew, of whom I am chief?
5. For whose salvation there has never been a period more favourable than the present. Already there seems to be a shaking amongst the bones in the valley of vision. The Jews begin to be weary of the long delay that attends the coming of their vainly expected Messiah. They have their misgivings as to the correctness of their views. They feel as though the system to which they have so tenaciously clung had waxen old and was ready to vanish away. Hope deferred begins to make the heart sick. They long for some better teaching than their Rabbins give, and for some more satisfying and sustaining influences than their Talmuds and their Targums yield. In this state of things their enlightened and intelligent men are more disposed to converse and argue upon the subject of the Messiahship of Christ in former times. And most assuredly when infidelity, under the guise of rational Christianity, is overspreading the continent, we shall do well to seek the conversion of the Jews. Infidelity can meet no antagonist more formidable than a learned, intelligent, and converted Jew. (T. Raffles, D. D.)
God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.—
A beautiful faith in the sparks of divinity in every human soul
I. Its good ground.
1. By creation.
(1) After the image of God.
(2) All from one pair.
2. By redemption.
(1) God will have all men to be saved.
(2) Christ sends His apostles to all nations.
3. By experience.
(1) In the heathen world.
(2) In the pastoral oversight of criminals.
II. Its beneficial influence.
1. For the Christian contemplation of the world and conceptions of history in general.
2. For Christian intercourse in daily life.
3. For the Christian ministry. (K. Gerok.)
The value of common things
A rich nobleman was once showing a friend a great collection of precious stones whose value was almost beyond counting. There were diamonds, and pearls, and rubies, and gems from almost every country, and had been gathered by their possessor at the greatest labour and expense. And yet, he remarked, they yield me no income. His friend replied that he had two stones which had only cost him five pounds each, but which yielded him a very considerable income, and he led him down to the mill and pointed to two toiling grey millstones. (W. Baxendale.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 28. Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing, c.] He addressed the whole company, among whom, it appears, there were persons well acquainted with Jewish customs probably some of them were Jewish proselytes.
But God hath showed me, c.] He now began to understand the import of the vision which he saw at Joppa. A Gentile is not to be avoided because he is a Gentile God is now taking down the partition wall which separated them from the Jews.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
God himself did erect a partition wall betwixt his people and other nations, Jews and Gentiles; hence by Gods own command the Jews might not have any familiar converse with the Gentiles, especially they might not marry with them. The Jews themselves had made this partition wall much larger, and they held it unlawful to eat with any of the Gentiles, or to go so much as into their houses; hence that objection made upon this occasion against St. Peter, Act 11:3.
Unclean; no man is now unclean by any ceremonial uncleanness, because he is not circumcised, or because he is not sprinkled with the blood of bulls, Heb 9:13; yet sin hath defiled the whole mass of mankind, and they are equally by nature morally unclean.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
28. Ye know it is . . . unlawful . .. for . . . a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of anothernation, &c.There was no express prohibition to thiseffect, and to a Certain extent intercourse was certainly kept up.(See the Gospel history, towards the end). But intimate socialfellowship was not practiced, as being adverse to the spirit of thelaw.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he said unto them,…. The whole company that were met together, who were chiefly, if not altogether Gentiles:
ye know that it is an unlawful thing; what is forbidden by the law of Moses, De 7:2 and by the traditions of the elders, which carry the matter further than the law did, and made it very criminal:
for a man that is a Jew, to keep company with, or come unto one of another nation; besides entering into covenants and marriages with them, which were forbidden by the law, though they allowed of trade and commerce with the Gentiles, yet not any familiar conversation with them; it was prohibited to eat and drink any sort of liquor with them in their houses h, nor might they walk with them in the streets, or on the road; says Maimonides i,
“it is forbidden a Jew to unite himself to Gentiles, because they are suspected of shedding blood, and he may not join himself with them in the way; if he meets a Gentile in the way, he causes him to turn to the right hand; if they ascend by an ascent, or descend by a descent, the Israelite may not be below, and the Gentile above: but the Israelite must be above, and the Gentile below, lest he should fall upon him and kill him; and he may not go even with (or along side by him) lest he break his skull.”
It is said k of some Rabbins, that they saw a certain man coming;
“says R. Chiyah, let us be gone, perhaps this man is an idolatrous Gentile, or one of the people of the earth, and it is forbidden to join with him in the way.”
They looked upon the houses of Gentiles unclean, and therefore would not enter into them: [See comments on Joh 18:28].
yea they say l, that:
“the court of a stranger (or Gentile) is as the habitation of a beast.”
Such an aversion was there in that people to all civil society with Gentiles: and so Apoltonius says of them m, that
“they not only departed from the Romans, but from all men, living a separate life from others; nor did they communicate at table with others; neither in things sacred, nor in any ceremonies;”
and this was well known to Jews and Gentiles:
but God hath showed me; partly by the vision he had seen, and partly by discourse with the men that came from Cornelius to him; and by comparing the vision and their message to him together, he saw that he was not obliged to abide by the customs and laws of the Jews: but was showed, as he says,
that I should not call any man common or unclean; that is, in a ceremonial sense; for otherwise, all by nature are morally unclean; and none are pure, but such who are washed in the blood of Christ, and are justified by his righteousness, and sanctified by his Spirit: he saw there was now no difference between Jew and Gentile; that the one was not clean because of his circumcision, nor the other unclean on account of his uncircumcision, or to be avoided for that reason; that the Gospel was to be preached to all; and that every believer of whatsoever nation, was acceptable to God, and ought to be regarded by his ministers and people.
h Mitzvot Tora, pr neg. 143. i Hilchot Rotzeach, c. 12. sect. 7. k Zohar in Exod. fol. 21. 1. l T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 62. 2. m Philostrat. Vita Apollon. l. 5. c. 11.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
How that it is an unlawful thing ( ). The conjunction is sometimes equivalent to (that). The old form of was from (, , law custom) and privative. In the N.T. only here and 1Pe 4:3 (Peter both times). But there is no O.T. regulation forbidding such social contact with Gentiles, though the rabbis had added it and had made it binding by custom. There is nothing more binding on the average person than social custom. On coming from the market an orthodox Jew was expected to immerse to avoid defilement (Edersheim, Jewish Social Life, pp. 26-28; Taylor’s Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, pp. 15, 26, 137, second edition). See also Acts 11:3; Gal 2:12. It is that middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14) which Jesus broke down.
One of another nation (). Dative case of an old adjective, but only here in the N.T. (, another, , race). Both Juvenal (Sat. XIV. 104, 105) and Tacitus (History, V. 5) speak of the Jewish exclusiveness and separation from Gentiles.
And yet unto (). Dative of the emphatic pronoun (note position of prominence) with () meaning here “and yet” or adversative “but” as often with which is by no means always merely the connective “and” (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1182f.). Now Peter takes back both the adjectives used in his protest to the Lord (verse 14) “common and unclean.” It is a long journey that Peter has made. He here refers to “no one” (), not to “things,” but that is great progress.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
An unlawful thing [] . The word is peculiar to Peter, being used only here and 1Pe 4:3. See note there. It emphasizes the violation of established order, being from the same root as tiqhmi, to lay down or establish. The Jews professed to ground this prohibition on the law of Moses; but there is no direct command in the Mosaic law forbidding Jews to associate with those of other nations. But Peter’s statement is general, referring to the general practice of the Jews to separate themselves in common life from uncircumcised persons. Juvenal says that the Jews were taught by Moses “not to show the way except to one who practices the same rites, and to guide the circumcised alone to the well which they seek” (Sat., 14, 104, 105). Tacitus also says of the Jews that “among themselves they are inflexibly faithful, and ready with charitable aid, but hate all others as enemies. They keep separate from all strangers in eating, sleeping, and matrimonial connections” (” Histories, ” 5, 5).
Of another nation [] Only here in New Testament. Used of the Philistines, 1Sa 13:3 – 5 (Sept.).
Emphatic, by contrast with ye. “Ye know,” etc., “but God hath showed me.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And he said unto them,” (ephe te pros autous) “Then he said to them,” Peter said to those of the household of Cornelius.
2) “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing,” (humeis epostasthe hos athemiton estin) “You all understand how that it is unlawful (by the Mosaic law),” with social, racial, and religious worship and service regulations, Joh 4:9; Joh 18:28. It came by tradition and custom that was considered based on the Law, Deu 7:1-3.
3) “For a man that is a Jew to keep company,” (andri loudio kollasthai) “For a responsible man who is a Jew to adhere to or associate in company with, Act 11:2-3.
4) “Or come unto one of another nation;” (e proserchesthai allophulo) “Or even to approach (draw near to) a foreigner,” one of another ethnic order, Gal 2:12-14.
5) “But God hath shewed me,” (kaitnoi ho theos edeiksen) “And (but) God has made plain to me,” convinced me by visual aid, a clear message in a vision and by word of mouth, Act 10:10-13; Act 15:8-9; Act 17:26.
6) “That I should not call any man common or unclean,” (medena koinon e aktharton legein anthropon) “That I should call no man at all either common or unclean,” Act 10:13-16; as was done under Mosaic regulations, Lev 11:1; Lev 11:4; Isa 66:17; Eze 4:14; 1Co 8:8; 1Co 8:13; Eph 2:13-22; Eph 3:6.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
28. Ye know that it is not lawful. This seemeth to be no friendly preface, and such as may rather harden (681) than win their hearts, when as they hear that they are accounted so unclean, that with their familiarity and conference they pollute the saints; which must needs be a great reproach for them. But it was needful for Peter thus to speak, lest they should suspect that he had an evil conscience, because, contrary to the custom delivered by the fathers, he came. (682) But when as he affirmeth that he was sent of God, all such suspicion is taken away and purged. Moreover, he mitigateth very well by these words the offense which did stick in their minds, by reason of an old grudge which was between the Jews and the Gentiles, so that he could by no means have entered his speech better, For he pronounceth that those are now clean who were before unclean, so that they have mutual fellowship now with the saints. Furthermore, whereas he said that it was wickedness for the Jews to go in unto the Gentiles, we must know that this came not so much from the law, as from the observation of the fathers. God had forbidden, indeed, that they should (not) entangle themselves with marriages or covenants, (Deu 7:3😉 they were never forbidden to eat with them, or to use the common businesses of life. But lest that familiarity might entice them into that which was forbidden, they observed the custom delivered by the fathers, so that they did not company together. It is to no end to dispute here whether that tradition did bind men’s consciences; for Peter doth not teach (683) what is lawful according to God, but what was commonly used.
No man. He maketh the sum and end of the vision more plain, when he referreth that unto men which was spoken of meats. And whereas he saith, that no man is unclean, it may not be understood of (all) particular persons; for it is certain that all unbelievers are polluted with uncleanness of conscience, so that they pollute those things which are otherwise pure, when as they do but touch them. Paul also saith that their children remain unclean until they be cleansed by faith. Finally, if faith alone do purge and purify the hearts of men, unbelief doth make the same profane. But Peter (684) compareth the Jews and the Gentiles together in this place; and because the wall of separation was pulled down, and the covenant of life (685) is now common to them both alike, he saith that those are not to be counted aliens who are made partakers of God’s adoption.
(681) “ Exasperet,” exasperate.
(682) “ Quasi legis contemptor,” as if he had been a despiser of the law, omitted.
(683) “ Ex professo,” professedly, omitted.
(684) “ Tantum,” only, omitted.
(685) “ Et salutis,” and salvation, omitted.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(28) Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing.St. Peter speaks from the standpoint of traditional Pharisaism rather than from that of the Law itself; but the feeling was widely diffused, and showed itself in forms more or less rigorous wherever Jews and heathens came in contact with each other. The strict Jew would not enter a Gentiles house, nor sit on the same couch, nor eat or drink out of the same vessel. (Comp. Note on Mar. 7:3-4.) The very dust of a heathen city was defiling. The Hindoo feeling of caste, shrinking from contact with those of a lower grade, driven to madness and mutiny by greased cartridges, presents the nearest modern analogue.
God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.The Apostle had, we find, at last learnt the lesson which the vision had taught him, in all the fulness of its meaning. Humanity as such had been redeemed by the Incarnation and Ascension, and was no longer common or unclean, even in the most outcast heathen. God was willing to receive all men. Sin alone was that which separated men from Him. Impurity was thought of as a moral, not a physical taint, and men were taught to see even in the sinner the potentialities of a higher life. He, too, had been redeemed, and might be justified and sanctified, and to him therefore honour and reverence were due as to one in whom the image of God was not utterly effaced, and might be restored to brightness. It is interesting, in this connection, to note the Honour all men of 1Pe. 2:17. It is obvious that the pride of class, resting on mere differences of culture, and showing itself in acts and words of contempt, is, from one point of view, even less excusable than that which at least imagined that it rested on a religious basis, while from another, it is less inveterate, and therefore more easily curable.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
28. Unlawful There was nothing in the Mosaic law rendering it in itself unlawful to keep company with one of another nation. Grotius remarks that the word unlawful here corresponds to the rabbinical , signifying the unlawful, not by the law of Moses, but by the decree of the doctors, which was held equal in rank.
God hath showed me First, by the symbolical sheet; second, by his Spirit bidding me meet your messengers; and, third, by the fact that your angel corresponds with my vision. For these two last facts fully answer Peter’s doubt, Act 10:17. And the whole will receive the closing and conclusive confirmation of Act 10:44.
Any man common For though the sheet included only animals, he knew that the truth symbolized embraced man. And as the symbol forbade calling any man common, so the sheet symbolically includes all men, and not the Church alone.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he said to them, “You yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man who is a Jew to join himself or come in to one of another nation, and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. That is the reason also that I came without saying anything against it, when I was sent for. I ask, therefore, with what intention you sent for me.”
Peter then explains why he has behaved in such an unusual manner. They will know that he is a Jew, and they will know that as a Jew he could not be expected to mix socially with non-Jews, nor enter a Gentile house. He is very much aware that they must be wondering why he has done so. He does not want them to think that he is careless about his own religious sensitivities or the religious sensitivities of the Jews. The requirements here, of course, went beyond the actual Law, and refer rather to what had become the custom, partly due to Pharisaic interpretation. But they were requirements that resulted from an urgent desire not to be religiously contaminated.
Indeed, he points out, the reason that he has done so is because God had shown him that he must not call any man common or unclean whom God has cleansed. That is why he has come without making any excuses, and without demurring at the thought of entering a Gentile house. God had told him to come, and he has therefore assumed that God has ensured that the house is ‘clean’ (just as He had cleansed the unclean animals).
Peter is not saying that he will never again make such distinctions. This is a particular case. Later he will have to be rebuked by Paul for allowing such distinctions to interfere with his fellowship with Gentile Christians (Gal 2:11-13). The question continued to be like a nettle to Jewish Christians.
Having made his position clear, both to Cornelius and to the Jewish Christians he had brought with him, who must also have been a little perturbed, he then asks why he has been sent for.
‘Another nation.’ Often a contemptuous expression on the lips of a Jew, but here possibly more neutral. Peter is in fact demonstrating that God does not think like that.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that 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 shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Ver. 28. Not call any man unclean ] Scilicet, quoad communem vitae usum; Nam alioqui omnes natura impuri; i.e. in regard of civil conversation. By nature (it is true) we are all unclean.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
28. , you, of all men, (best) know: being those immediately concerned in the obstruction to intercourse which the rule occasioned.
] that it is unlawful , or ‘how unlawful it is:’ better the former, because in the order of the words, has the stress on it: the other rendering would more naturally represent . In both the reff. the ambiguity is the same.
There is some difficulty about this unlawfulness of consorting with those who, like Cornelius, worshipped the true God. It rests upon no legal prohibition, and seems, at first sight, hardly consistent with the zeal to gain proselytes predicated of the Pharisees, Mat 23:15 , with Jos. Antt. xx. 2. 3 ( , , (Monobazus, of Adiabene) ), and with the Rabbinical comment Schemoth Rabba on Exo 12:4 , “Hoc idem est quod scriptum dicit Jes. Lev 3 . Et non dicet filius adven qui adhsit Domino, dicendo: separando separavit me Dominus a populo suo.” But whatever exceptions there may have been, it was unquestionably the general practice of the Jews to separate themselves in common life from uncircumcised persons. We have Juvenal testifying to this at Rome, Sat. xiv. 103, ‘non monstrare vias, eadem nisi sacra colenti: Qusitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos.’ And Tacitus, Hist. Act 10:5 , ‘adversus omnes alios hostile odium, separati epulis, discreti cubilibus,’ &c.
], not, ‘ but God hath shewed me,’ as E. V.: can never have this meaning, and in all cases where it is so rendered we may trace the significance of the simple copula if we examine. Here, for instance: the two parties concerned are , . ‘ Ye , though ye see me here, know, how strong the prejudice is which would have kept me away: and I , though entertaining fully this prejudice myself, yet have been taught &c.’
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 10:28 . : only once again in N.T., and significantly in 1Pe 4:3 , but cf. for a similar sense to its use here 2Ma 6:5 ; 2Ma 7:1 . On the extent to which this feeling was carried see Edersheim, Jewish Social Life , pp. 26 28; Taylor’s Sayings of the Jewish Fathers , pp. 15, 26, 137 (second edition); Weber, Jdische Theologie , p. 68; so too Jos., c. Apion , ii., 28, 29, 36; Juvenal, xiv., 103; Tacitus, Hist. , v., 5. , see on Act 5:13 and Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., in loco . : objected to by Zeller and Over-beck, because we know of instances where Jews went without scruple into the houses of Gentiles ( cf. Jos., Ant. , xx., 2, 3); but here the whole context plainly shows what kind of intercourse was intended (see also Wetstein). Hilgenfeld too regards the notice as un-historical, but an answer may be found to his objections in the references above and in Feine, pp. 202, 204, although his language seems inconsistent with that on p. 205. : in the LXX and Apocrypha, so in Philo and Josephus as here; nowhere else in N.T. but here with a certain delicate touch, avoiding the use of the word “heathen”; in Act 11:3 no such delicacy of feeling. : not “but,” A.V., but as in R.V., “and yet,” i.e. , in spite of all these prohibitions and usages. .: emphatic, preceding (Weiss). How fully Peter afterwards lived and preached this truth his First Epistle shows, cf. 1Pe 2:17 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
know. Greek. epistamai. App-132.
unlawful. Greek. athemitos. Here and 1Pe 4:3. Themis is that which is established by custom or usage.
keep company. Greek. kollaomai. See Luk 15:15.
one of another nation = aliens. Greek. allophulos Only here in N.T., but frequently in Septuagint, where the Hebrew reads “Philistines”.
hath. Omit.
me. Emphatic because it stands first in the sentence. “Me God shewed”.
not call any = call no (Greek. medeis).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
28. , you, of all men, (best) know: being those immediately concerned in the obstruction to intercourse which the rule occasioned.
] that it is unlawful, or how unlawful it is: better the former, because in the order of the words, has the stress on it: the other rendering would more naturally represent . In both the reff. the ambiguity is the same.
There is some difficulty about this unlawfulness of consorting with those who, like Cornelius, worshipped the true God. It rests upon no legal prohibition, and seems, at first sight, hardly consistent with the zeal to gain proselytes predicated of the Pharisees, Mat 23:15,-with Jos. Antt. xx. 2. 3 ( , , (Monobazus, of Adiabene) ), and with the Rabbinical comment Schemoth Rabba on Exo 12:4, Hoc idem est quod scriptum dicit Jes. lvi. 3. Et non dicet filius adven qui adhsit Domino, dicendo: separando separavit me Dominus a populo suo. But whatever exceptions there may have been, it was unquestionably the general practice of the Jews to separate themselves in common life from uncircumcised persons. We have Juvenal testifying to this at Rome, Sat. xiv. 103, non monstrare vias, eadem nisi sacra colenti: Qusitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos. And Tacitus, Hist. Act 10:5, adversus omnes alios hostile odium, separati epulis, discreti cubilibus, &c.
], not, but God hath shewed me, as E. V.: can never have this meaning, and in all cases where it is so rendered we may trace the significance of the simple copula if we examine. Here, for instance:-the two parties concerned are , . Ye, though ye see me here, know, how strong the prejudice is which would have kept me away: and I, though entertaining fully this prejudice myself, yet have been taught &c.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 10:28. ) ye yourselves. He addresses all in his own name, not also in the name of those accompanying him.-, to come unto) an act which is even less than , to join ones self with.-, one of an alien nation) Euphemism [for Gentile].-) for , and for but.-, to me) This word is emphatic.-[ , GOD) Peter might suppose the knowledge of the true GOD as existing on the part of Cornelius: Act 10:34; Act 10:36.-V. g.]-, hath showed) The word is employed in the strict sense: Act 10:11. He speaks sparingly as to his own hesitation, and as to the secret vision which he had seen.-, no one that is a man) This is elegantly put last: it involves an tiology [the reason assigned], and intensifies the universality of the language.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
that it: Act 11:2, Act 11:3, Act 22:21, Act 22:22, Joh 4:9, Joh 4:27, Joh 18:28, Gal 2:12-14
but: Act 10:15, Act 10:34, Act 11:9, Act 15:8, Act 15:9, Isa 65:5, Luk 18:11, Eph 3:6, Eph 3:7
Reciprocal: Lev 7:19 – General Lev 11:8 – they are unclean Lev 20:25 – put difference Jos 6:23 – left them Isa 52:11 – touch Zec 14:20 – shall there Mar 7:2 – defiled Mar 7:15 – nothing Rom 14:14 – and am Gal 2:14 – If thou Eph 2:14 – the middle Eph 3:5 – in other
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8
Act 10:28. The first part of this verse states the long-standing attitude of the Jews toward the Gentiles. Peter makes his application of this vision of the sheet and the conversation in connection with it. In that instance nothing was said about common or unclean men; only articles of food. But the apostle understood the lesson and stated it to this assembled audience.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 10:28. Ye know. We find the same form of appeal to the knowledge of the hearers below, Act 10:37. Those to whom St. Peter spoke were familiar by hearsay with the main facts connected with the early promulgation of the gospel; and they were familiar by experience with the impediments to social intercourse which existed between Jews and Gentiles, especially in Juda.
An unlawful thing. A difficulty has been needlessly imported into this phrase. The word () denotes rather what is opposed to venerable custom than what is contrary 10 positive law. There is no precise and explicit text in the Old Testament which forbids such intercourse, but the strict avoiding of such intercourse is in harmony with the whole spirit of the Old Testament. As to the fact of this scrupulous separation, we have the evidence of contemporary poets and historians in harmony with that experience of Cornelius, to which appeal is made. Juvenal (Sat. xiv. 103) says it was the custom of the Jews non monstrare vias, eadem nisi sacra colenti, and Tacitus (Hist. v. 5) says of them, Adversus omnes hostile odium, separati epulis, discreti cubilibus.
To keep company, or to come unto one of another nation. The primary reference is to the custom of eating together at the same table. This is the point specified in chap. Act 11:3 (see Gal 2:12). It is possible that at this moment provisions were set forth to view, made ready for the refreshment of the travellers after their journey. It is precisely in this particular that there would be the greatest risk of a violation of the law of Moses. From this point of view, too, we see the peculiar significance of St. Peters vision. It must be added that the phrase of another nation is very gentle.
God hath showed me. The word me is emphatic, and it is contrasted with ye above. Dean Alford puts this point well: Ye, though ye see me here, know how strong the prejudice is which would have kept me away; and I, though entertaining fully this prejudice myself, yet have been taught, etc. We should not fail to observe the stress which he lays on the fact that God had taught him what he had learnt (see above on the direct communication of the Holy Spirit, Act 10:19). So far, St. Peter had now fully entered into the meaning of the vision. Only one other part of this Divine teaching was required (see note on Act 10:34). It is observable that Peter says nothing to Cornelius of the strange sight which he had seen in his trance. This reticence is thoroughly natural.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Act 10:28-29. And he said, Ye know how it is an unlawful thing, &c. A thing not allowed by the Jews; for a man that is a Jew A native Jew, as I am; to keep company with, or come unto one of another nation A stranger, and an uncircumcised Gentile. This was not made unlawful by the law of God, but by the precepts of their wise men, which they looked upon to be no less obliging. They did not indeed forbid them to converse with Gentiles, in the way of traffic or worldly business, but to eat with them. With such scorn did the Jews look upon the Gentiles, who in their turn held them in equal contempt, as appears by many passages in the Latin poets. But now, saith Peter, God hath showed me By a remarkable vision; that I should not call any man common or unclean Peter thought it necessary to inform them how he came to change his mind in this matter, lest, being thought to have used lightness, his word should have the less authority. Therefore Having received direction from God; came I unto you without gainsaying Or delay; as soon as I was sent for Ready to preach the same gospel to you that I preached to the Jews. I ask, therefore, for what intent ye have sent for me Although Peter in a great measure knew this already, he puts Cornelius on telling the story, both that his friends, and all that were present, might be informed, and Cornelius himself be more impressed by the narration; the repetition of which, even as we read it, gives a new dignity and spirit to Peters succeeding discourse.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
28, 29. Upon entering the house of this Gentile, side by side with him, and into the presence of others who were likewise uncircumcised, Peter deemed it proper to inform them of his reason for thus departing from a well-known Jewish custom. (28) “And he said to them, You know that it is unlawful for a Jew to attach himself to, or to come into the house of one of another nation. Yet God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (29) Therefore, I came without objecting when I was sent for. I ask, then, for what purpose you sent for me?” This speech shows clearly that Peter had interpreted the vision of unclean beasts as referring to men as well as to animal food.