Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 10:41
Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, [even] to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
41. not to all the people ] For they, having rejected Moses and the prophets, who foretold Christ’s coming, and the nature of His Kingdom, were not likely, as Jesus Himself had said of some others of like character, to be converted by the rising of any one from the dead.
witnesses chosen before of God ] Christ Himself speaks (Joh 17:6) of the Apostles as given unto Him by God.
even to us ] Cp. 1Co 15:6-8.
who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead ] See Luk 24:42-43. And in the narrative Joh 21:12-15 it is to be inferred, especially from the last verse, that Jesus Himself partook of the food which He gave to the rest.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Not to all the people – Not to the nation at large, for this was not necessary in order to establish the truth of his resurrection. He, however, showed himself to many persons. See the Harmony of the Accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus.
Chosen of God – Appointed by God, or set apart by his authority through Jesus Christ.
Who did eat and drink … – And by doing this he furnished the clearest possible proof that he was truly risen; that they were not deceived by an illusion of the imagination or by a phantom. Compare Joh 21:12-13.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 41. Not to all the people] In the order of Divine providence, the public were to be no longer instructed by Jesus Christ personally; but it was necessary that those who were to preach redemption in his name should be thoroughly furnished to this good and great work; therefore, the time he spent on earth, after his resurrection, was devoted to the instruction of his disciples.
Witnesses chosen before of God] That is, God chose such men to attest this fact as were every way best qualified to give evidence on the subject; persons who were always to be found; who might at all times be confronted with those, if any such should offer themselves, who could pretend to prove that there was any imposture in this case; and persons who, from the very circumstances in which they were placed, must appear to have an absolute conviction of the truth of all they attested. The first preachers of the Gospel must be the witnesses of its facts; and these first preachers must be put in such circumstances as to demonstrate, not only that they had no secular end in view, nor indeed could have any, but also that they should be able to evince that they had the fullest conviction of the reality of the eternal world, and of their Master’s existence in glory there; as they carried their lives continually in their hands, and regarded them not, so that they might fulfil the ministry which they had received from their Lord, and finish their course with joy.
But why was not Christ, after his resurrection, shown to all the people!
1. Because it was impossible that such a thing could be done without mob and tumult. Let it only be announced, “Here is the man who was dead three days, and who is risen from the dead!” what confusion would be the consequence of such an exposure! Some would say, This is he; others, He is like him; and so on; and the valid testimony must be lost in the confusion of the multitude.
2. God chose such witnesses whose testimony should be unimpeachable; the men who knew him best, and who by their depositions in proof of the fact should evidently risk their lives. And,
3. as multitudes are never called to witness any fact, but a few selected from the rest, whose knowledge is most accurate, and whose veracity is unquestionable, therefore, God showed not Christ risen from the dead to all the people, but to witnesses chosen by himself; and they were such as perfectly knew him before, and who ate and drank with him after his resurrection, and consequently had the fullest proof and conviction of the truth of this fact.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Not to all the people: Christ after his resurrection appeared not to the wicked Jews, for being to suffer no more, his enemies were not vouchsafed a sight of him; and thus he did not manifest himself unto the world, Joh 14:22.
But unto witnesses; these witnesses were the apostles, who were chosen by God himself immediately; and the vacancy supplied by lot, which was at Gods direction, Act 1:24,26. The metaphor here used is taken from the ordinary way then in use of choosing men into offices, which is here alluded to.
Eat and drink with him: though in the gospel history we do not read that our Saviour drank after he rose again; yet it is sufficiently implied, being he did eat, and make a meal with his disciples, Luk 24:30,42,43; Jo 21:12; and eating is put in Scripture for the whole refection, Mat 15:2, compared with Luk 7:36.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Not to all the people,…. Of the Jews, who crucified him; nor to the whole body of the Christians, though at one time to a large number, even five hundred brethren at once:
but unto witnesses chosen before of God; by Christ himself, who is God:
even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead; namely, to the apostles, with whom he familiarly conversed by times, for the space of forty days after his resurrection; and Beza’s most ancient copy; and the Ethiopic version here add, “forty days”; and particularly he did sometimes eat and drink with them;
Lu 24:42 and though drinking is not mentioned, it is included in eating, as in Lu 7:36 wherefore there is no need to connect the last clause, “after he rose from the dead”, with the latter part of the preceding verse, as some do, on that account.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Chosen before (). Perfect passive participle dative plural from , to choose or designate by hand (, , hand, and , to stretch, as in Acts 14:23; 2Cor 8:19), beforehand (), a double compound as old as Plato, but here alone in the N.T. Peter is evidently stating the thing as it happened and not trying to make a convincing story by saying that both friends and foes saw him after his resurrection. It is the “historian’s candour” (Paley) in Luke here that adds to the credibility of the narrative. The sceptical Jews would not have believed and Jesus was kept from open contact with the world of sin after his Passion.
To us who did eat and drink with him ( ). The “who” () is first person agreeing with “us” (). Second aorist active indicative of the common verbs and . is associative instrumental case. There are difficulties to us in understanding how Jesus could eat and drink after the resurrection as told here and in Lu 24:41-3, but at any rate Peter makes it clear that it was no hallucination or ghost, but Jesus himself whom they saw after he rose from the dead, “after the rising as to him” ( , with the accusative articular infinitive second aorist active and the accusative of general reference). Furneaux dares to think that the disciples misunderstood Jesus about eating after the resurrection. But that is to deny the testimony merely because we cannot explain the transition state of the body of Jesus.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Chosen before [] . Only here in New Testament. The simple verb ceirotonew, to appoint, occurs Act 14:23; 2Co 8:19; and originally means to stretch out the hand for the purpose of giving a vote. Hence to elect by show of hands, and generally to appoint. Plato uses the word of the election of leaders of choruses (” Laws, ” 765). In later ecclesiastical usage it signified ordain, as bishops or deacons.
Who [] . The compound pronoun marks them more strongly as belonging to the class of eye – witnesses.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Not to all the people,”(ou panti to lao) “Not visible to all the people (the masses) of Galilee and Judea,” not to unbelievers, or to all believers, nor will He appear to all unbelievers, or even all believers, at the very same instant of His return in the air, Heb 9:27-28; Act 1:10-11.
2) “But unto witnesses chosen before of God,” (alla marusin tois peokesheirotonemois hupo tou theou) “But to appear visibly to witnesses who had been previously appointed by direction of God,” Mat 26:31-32; Mat 28:7; Mat 28:10; Mat 28:16; Joh 15:27; Joh 16:16; Act 1:10-11; Act 1:21-22; Act 13:31.
3) “Even to us, who did eat and drink with him,”(hemin oitines sunephagomen kai eunipiomen auto) “Even to us (of His Apostles and disciples, of His church), who did eat and drink with Him,” during His ministry, and even after His resurrection, Joh 21:5-14; Luk 24:36-44. They were special church member people who also ate, and drank with Him at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Luk 22:28; Luk 22:50.
4) “After he rose from the dead,” (meta to anastenai auton ek nekron) “After the time (God caused Him to rise) out of or from among the dead corpses,” and before He ascended into heaven. The “us” who were chosen witnesses Joh 15:16; Joh 15:27; Act 1:8-11, were all men and women who were of His obedient company, the church, Act 1:21-22, who had companied with Him from Galilee, from the beginning, as certified by the op. cit. Scriptures, Act 10:37; Joh 15:16; Joh 15:27.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
41. If any man demand here, Why God did not show his Son openly to all men after his resurrection? I answer, Although there could no reason be showed, yet ought the counsel of God alone to suffice sober and modest men, that they may assure themselves without all doubt that that is best which God hath thought meet. And yet, assuredly God used this moderation to a good end. For the certainty of the resurrection was proved by many and firm testimonies, and this was profitable to exercise the faith of the godly, to believe the gospel rather than their eyes. As touching the wicked and professed enemies of Christ seeing that being so often convict they would never yield to God, they were unworthy to have Christ to admit them to behold the glow of his resurrection. Though even they were sufficiently convict with the report of the soldiers, whom they had hired to keep the sepulcher; that I may omit other reasons which we may fet out of the Harmony. (710) Therefore, let us assure ourselves of this, that the holy apostles were chosen by the holy decree of God, that by their testimony the truth of Christ’s resurrection might stand. Whosoever is not content with this approbation, let him take away and overthrow if he can that inviolable decree of God, which Peter commendeth to us in this place. And as for us, if we covet to have God the sure author of our faith let us learn to be content with the witnesses whom in due time he hath brought forth, as it were, by his hand, being ordained by him before the world was made.
Who did eat. And here it appeareth what great regard Christ had of our rudeness and ignorance, who did abase himself so far for our sake, that when he was now endued with heavenly glory, he did yet, notwithstanding, eat and drink as a mortal man. Wherefore, there is no cause why we should complain that the resurrection of Christ is obscure and doubtful; for he suffered his disciples to be slow and hard of belief for this cause, that being better confirmed, they might take from us all occasion of doubting. Yea, rather, we must endeavor ourselves that our unworthiness and unthankfulness do not darken so great kindness of the Son of God toward us. But when as the Scripture saith, that Christ did eat, curious men move a question, what became of that meat? But the answer is easy; that like as it was created out of nothing, so was it easily brought to nothing by the divine power of Christ. That meat which is taken for the sustenance of the body is concocted and afterward digested; but we know that Christ took this meat to feed our faith, and in this use was it spent. And those men are deceived who think that Christ did only seem to eat, For what good could such a visor or vain show have done? (711) For when, as we say that Christ was not enforced with any necessity of his own to eat, but that he meant only to provide for those that were his, all occasion is cut off (712) from the frivolous inventions of men.
(710) “ Quas petere licebit ex Harmonia,” which may be seen in my Harmony.
(711) “ Nec video quorsum attineat ejusmodi subterfugia quaerere,” nor do I see the use of having recourse to subterfuges (futile explanations) of this kind.
(712) “ Ansa praecisa est,” no handle is left for.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(41) Unto witnesses chosen before.Better, appointed. The precise word which St. Luke uses occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but is connected with the word rendered ordained in Act. 14:23.
Who did eat and drink with him.The three recorded instances of this are found in Luk. 24:30; Luk. 24:42; Joh. 21:13. This was, of course, the crucial test which showed that the Form on which the disciples had looked was no phantom of the imagination.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
41. Not to all the people (See note introducing Matthew 28, vol. i, p. 345 . )
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 10:41. Not to all the people, &c. It has frequently been asked, Why Christ did not shew himself to all the people, but to his disciples only? Now it may be sufficient to reply, that where there are witnesses enough, no judge or jury complains for want of more; and therefore, if the witnesses that we have for the resurrection are sufficient, it is no objection that we have not others, or more. If three credible men attest a will, which are asmany as the law requires, would any body ask why all the town were not called to sign their names to it? But it may be objected, why were these witnesses called and chosen out? Why, for this reason, that they might be good ones. Does not every wise man choose proper witnesses to his deed? And does not a good choice of witnesses give strength to every deed? How comes it to pass then, that the very thing which shuts out all suspicion in other cases, should in this be of all others the most suspicious thing itself? What reason there is for the Jews to make any complaints, may be judged from the evidence already offered concerning the resurrection: Christ suffered openly in their sight, and they were so well apprized of his prediction, that they set a guard on his sepulchre; every soldier was to them a witness of his resurrection, of their own choosing. After this, they had not one apostle only, but all the apostles, and many other witnesses with them: the apostles testified the resurrection not only to the people, but to the elders assembled in senate: to support their evidence, they worked miracles openly in the name of Christ: these people therefore have the least reason to complain, and have had of all others the fullest evidence, and in some respects such as none but themselves could have; for they only were the keepers of the sepulchre. But the argument goes further. It is said, that Jesus was sent with a special commission to the Jews, that he was their Messias: and as his resurrection was his main credential, he ought to have appeared publicly to the rulers of the Jews after his resurrection; that in doing otherwise, he acted like an ambassador pretending authority from his prince, but refusing to shew his letters of credence. In reply to this objection, it should be observed, that, by the accounts we have of the Lord Jesus, it appears he had two distinct offices respecting the present point; one, as the Messias particularly promised to the Jews; another, as he was to be the great high priest of the world. With respect to the first office, the apostle speaks, Heb 3:1 and he speaks of himself, Mat 15:24. I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Christ continued in the discharge of this office during the time of his natural human life, till he was finally rejected by the Jews: and it is observable, that the last time he spoke to the Jews, according to St. Matthew’s account, he solemnly took leave of them, and closed his commission in respect to his presence with them in the flesh. He had been long among them publishing glad things; but when all his preaching, all his miracles, had proved in vain, the last thing he did was to denounce the woes which they had brought upon themselves. Matthew 23 recites these woes, and at the end of them Christ takes this passionate leave of Jerusalem, “Ye shall not see me from henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” It is remarkable, thatthis passage, which is recorded by Matthew and Luke twice over, is determined by the circumstances to refer to the near approach of his own death, and the extreme hatred of the Jews to him; and therefore those words, Ye shall not see me henceforth, are to be dated from the time of his death, and manifestly point out the end of his mission to them. From making this declaration, as it stands in St. Matthew, his discourses are to his disciples, as they chiefly relate to the miserable condition of the Jews, which was now decreed, and soon to be accomplished. Let us now ask, whether in this state of things any farther credentials of Christ’s commission to the Jews, could be demanded or expected? He was rejected, his commission was determined, and with it the fate of the nation was determined also; what use then of more credentials? As to appearing to them after his resurrection, he could not do it consistently with his own prediction, Ye shall see me no more, &c. The Jews, as a nation, were not in the disposition to receive him after the resurrection, nor are they in it yet. The resurrection was the foundation of Christ’s new commission, as it respected the gospel, which extended to all the world. This prerogative the Jews had under this commission, that the gospel was every where first offered to them. Since then, this commission, of which the resurrection was the foundation, extended to all the world alike. What ground then is there to demand special and particular evidence to the Jews? The emperor and senate of Rome were a much more considerable part of the world than the chief priests and the synagogue; why is it not then objected, that Christ did not shew himself to Tiberius and his senate? And since all men have an equal right in this case, why may not the same demand be made for every country? nay, for every age? and then we may bring the question nearer home, and ask why Christ did not appear in king George’s reign? The observation already made upon the resurrection, naturally leads to another, which will help to account for the nature of the evidence that we have on this great point. As the resurrection was the opening of a new commission, in which all the world had an interest; so the grand concern was to have a proper evidence to establish this truth, and which should be of equal weight to all. This did not depend upon the satisfaction given to private persons, whether they were magistrates or not magistrates, but upon the conviction of those whose office it was to bear testimony to this truth. In this sense, the apostles were chosen to be witnesses of the resurrection, because they were chosen to bear testimony to it in the world, and not only because they were admitted to see Christ after his resurrection; for the fact is otherwise. The gospel, indeed, concerned to shew the evidence on which the faith of the world was to rest, is very particular in setting forth the ocular demonstration which the apostles had of the resurrection, and mentions others who saw Christ after his resurrection only in course, and as the thread of the history led to it: but yet it is certain, that there were many others who had this satisfaction as well as the apostles; so that it is a mistake to infer from the passage before us, that a few only were chosen to see Christ after he came from the grave. The truth of the case is this, that out of those who saw him, some were chosen to bear testimony to the world, and for that reason had the fullest demonstration of the truth, that they might be the better able to give satisfaction to others: and what was there in this conduct to complain of? What to raise any jealousy or suspicion? To allege the meanness of the witnesses as an objection, is very weak; for men may be good witnesses without having great estates, and be able to report what they see with their eyes without being philosophers. As far then as the truth of the resurrection depended on the evidence of sense, the apostles were duly qualified. Did their meanness stand in the way of evidence, which arose from the great powers with which they were endued from above? Consider their natural and supernatural qualifications, they were in everyrespect proper witnesses: take these qualifications together, and they were witnesses without exception. It is indeed said, that they were interested in the affair. Would we then have evidence from unbelievers? A witness, who does not believe the truth of what he affirms, is a cheat. Nobody therefore could be an evidence of the resurrection but a believer, and such a one is said to be interested. But this is an absurd objection, because it is an objection to every honest witness that ever lived; for every honest witness believes the truth of what he says. If the objection is intended to charge the apostles with views or hopes of temporal advantage, it is built upon an utter ignorance of the history of the church. It may be demonstrated, that if Jesus had shewed himself to his enemies, and to all the people, these appearances, instead of putting his resurrection beyond doubt, would rather have weakened the evidence of it in after ages, and so would have been of infinite detriment to mankind: for upon the supposition that our Lord had shewed himself openly, either his enemies, yielding to the evidences of their senses, would have believed his resurrection, or, resisting that evidence, they would have rejected it altogether. To begin with the latter supposition: such of our Lord’s enemies as then resisted the evidence of their senses, must have justified their unbeliefby affirming, that the man who appeared to them was not Jesus, but an impostor who personated him. The evidence of the fact would therefore have gained nothing by such public appearance, because the generality of the Jews were not capable of passing a judgment upon the falsehood which Christ’s enemies must have made use of to support the denial of his resurrection. Being unacquainted with Jesus, they could not certainly tell whether he was really the person whom the Romans had crucified. His apostles, who knew his stature, shape, air, voice, and manner, were the only proper persons by whose determination the point in dispute could be decided. Wherefore, notwithstanding our Lord had appeared to all the people, the whole stress of the evidence, in case of any doubt or objection, must have relied on the testimony of the very persons who bear witness to it now, and on whose testimony the world has believed it. So that instead of gaining any additional evidence by Jesus’s shewing himself publicly to all the people, we should have had nothing to trust to but the testimony of his disciples, and that clogged with this incumbrance, that his resurrection was denied by many to whom he appeared. But, in the second place, it may be fancied, that, on supposition that our Lord rose from the dead, the whole people of the Jews must have believed, if he had shewed himself publicly. To this supposition it may be replied, that the greatest part of our Lord’s enemies cannot be supposed to have been so well acquainted with his person, as to have beenable to know him again with certainty; for which reason, though he had shewed himself to them, even their belief of his resurrection must have depended on the testimony of his disciples and friends. If so, it is not very probable that his appearing publicly would have had any great influence on the Jews. But supposing the Jewish nation in general should have been converted by his appearance, and have become his disciples, what advantage would the cause of Christianity have reaped from this effect? Would the evidence of theresurrectionhavebecometherebyunquestionable?Orwouldmoderninfidelshave been better disposed to believe it? By no means. The truth is, the objections against his resurrection would have been tenfold more numerous and forcible than they are at present: for would not the whole have been called a state trick, a Jewish fable, a mere political contrivance, to patch up their broken credit after so much talk of a Messiah who was to come at that time? Besides, should we not have been told, that the government being engaged in a plot, a fraud of this kind might easily have been carried on, because it suited with the prejudices of the people; and because the few, who had the sagacity to detect the fraud, had no opportunity to examine into it? Or if they did examine and detect the fraud, they durst not make a discovery? And to conclude, would not the very proofs which now are sufficient to attest this fact, have been buried in oblivion, and been entirely lost, for want of that opposition which the Jews themselves made to it, and which was the occasion of their being recorded in the Scripture?
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
Ver. 41. Eat and drink with him ] In nihilam abiit cibus post resurrectionem sumptus.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
41 .] Bengel would understand . . . of previous intercourse during His ministry , and parenthesize , finding a difficulty in their having eaten and drunk with Him after His Resurrection . But this would make the significant (“people who”). very flat and unmeaning, especially after Act 10:39 ; whereas the fact of their having eaten and drunk with Him after His Resurrection gives most important testimony to the reality and identity of His risen Body. And there is no real difficulty in it: Luk 24:41 ; Luk 24:43 and Joh 21:12 give us instances; and, even if is to be pressed, it is no contradiction to Luk 22:18 , which only refers to one particular kind of drinking.
. . . ] Had not Peter in his mind the Lord’s own solemn words, , Joh 17:6 ?
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 10:41 . , and therefore Cornelius could not have known the details fully. Theophylact well remarks, “If even the disciples were incredulous, and needed touch and talk, what would have happened in the case of the many?” , i.e. , by God; only here, not used in LXX or Apocrypha; in classical Greek in same sense as here, see Act 14:23 for the simple verb. The preposition points back to the choice of the disciples with a view to bearing their testimony, Act 1:18 , so that their witness was no chance, haphazard assertion. ., cf. Luk 24:41 ; Luk 24:43 (Joh 21:13 ), see also Ignat., ad Smyrn. , iii., 3 ( Apost. Const. , vi., 30, 5). : it is surely a false method of criticism which cavils at this statement, because in St. Luke’s Gospel nothing is said of drinking, only of eating (see Plummer, in loco ). Bede comments: “here Peter mentions what is not in the Gospel, unless intimated when He says ‘until I drink it new’ ” etc.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
chosen before. Greek. procheirotoneo. Only here. Compare Act 14:23.
did eat . . . with. Greek. sunesthio. Here, Act 11:3. Luk 15:2. 1Co 5:11. Gal 1:2, Gal 1:12.
drink with. Greek. sumpino. Only here.
from the dead. Greek. ek nekron. App-139.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
41.] Bengel would understand . . . of previous intercourse during His ministry, and parenthesize ,-finding a difficulty in their having eaten and drunk with Him after His Resurrection. But this would make the significant (people who). very flat and unmeaning, especially after Act 10:39; whereas the fact of their having eaten and drunk with Him after His Resurrection gives most important testimony to the reality and identity of His risen Body. And there is no real difficulty in it: Luk 24:41; Luk 24:43 and Joh 21:12 give us instances; and, even if is to be pressed, it is no contradiction to Luk 22:18, which only refers to one particular kind of drinking.
. . . ] Had not Peter in his mind the Lords own solemn words,- , Joh 17:6?
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 10:41. , not) Not now any longer, as He did before His death.- , not to all the people) His kingdom is a kingdom of faith, which was to be propagated by witnesses, and those witnesses persons divinely approved of and trustworthy: and it is a heavenly, not a worldly kingdom; not one of vain splendour, but (as Justus Jonas expresses it) one lying hid under the (various) forms of the cross.-, to us) The Apposition of the noun () and pronoun ().- , did eat and drink with Him) during two years and more before His passion. There is denoted by this phrase (concerning which comp. Joh 15:27), long-continued converse: nor were the apostles wont at any time to mention that they did eat with Jesus after His resurrection; for Jesus did this for their own conviction, not for that of others: and He even had spoken more widely as to not afterwards drinking of wine, Luk 22:18; Luk 22:16, I will not any more eat thereof [of the Passover, not of any food] until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God, than concerning the not eating of the Passover (in opposition to any se of food whatever). Therefore , after, depends on Act 10:40 [Showed Him openly, after He rose from the dead; not, We did eat and drink with Him after He rose]. Christ appeared after His resurrection to those who before had believed on Him, and who could bear witness that He, who was said to have risen again, was truly the Christ whom they had known before.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Not: Act 10:39, Act 1:2, Act 1:3, Act 1:22, Act 13:31, Joh 14:17, Joh 14:22, Joh 20:1 – Joh 21:25
witnesses: Joh 15:16
even: Luk 24:30, Luk 24:41-43, Joh 21:13
Reciprocal: Gen 18:8 – and they Gen 45:1 – Cause Mat 20:17 – took Mat 26:29 – until Mar 5:43 – Given Luk 22:16 – until Luk 24:43 – General Luk 24:48 – General Joh 16:16 – a little while Joh 20:25 – We Joh 21:12 – Come Act 1:4 – being assembled together Act 2:24 – God Act 3:15 – whereof 1Co 15:5 – then 1Th 1:10 – whom Heb 13:20 – brought 1Jo 1:2 – and bear
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Act 10:41. Not to all the people. Alexanders remark here is just, that to commit the testimony to select eye-witnesses was more in keeping with the dignity and glory of the risen Saviour, which would now have been degraded by the same promiscuous and unreserved association with men, that was necessary to His previous ministry; and he adds: The very fact that no such public recognition of His person is recorded, though at first it might have seemed to detract from the evidence of His resurrection, but serves to enhance it, by showing how free the witnesses of this event were from a disposition to exaggerate or make their case stronger than it was in fact.
Witnesses chosen before of God. Witnesses, namely those who had been previously appointed by God. Again there is reference to the Divine regulation of everything that related to the first proclamation of the gospel.
Who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. It is a fancy of Bengel that the eating and drinking with Christ, here referred to, took place before the Crucifixion. But we must follow the natural order of the words. The facts here stated belong to the period of the Great Forty Days. Both St. Luke and St. John give instances.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Seen notes on verse 40
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses {r} chosen before of God, [even] to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
(r) This choosing of the apostles is properly given to God: for though God is president in the lawful election of ministers, yet there is in this place a secret opposition and setting of God’s choosing and men’s voices against one another, for the apostles are appointed directly by God, and the Church ministers indirectly.