47<\/strong>. Can any man forbid water<\/em>, &c.] Though the gift of the Spirit has been made so apparent, yet St Peter does not omit the outward sign which Christ had ordained (Mat 28:19<\/span>) for the admission of members into His Church.<\/p>\n as well as we<\/em> ] Thus does he recognize that God had chosen Gentiles as well as Jews, and given the same grace to each.<\/p>\n Can any man forbid water … – <\/B>They have shown that they are favored in the same way as the Jewish converts. God has manifested himself to them as he did to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. Is it not clear, therefore, that they are entitled to the privilege of Christian baptism? The expression used here is one that would naturally refer to water as being brought; that is, to a small quantity; and would seem to imply that they were baptized, not by immersion, but by pouring or sprinkling.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 47<\/span>. Can any man forbid water<\/B><\/I>] These had evidently received the Holy Ghost<\/I>, and consequently were become members of the mystical body of Christ; and yet St. Peter requires that they shall receive baptism by water<\/I>, that they might become members of the Christian Church. In other cases, they received baptism first, and the Spirit afterwards by the imposition of hands: see Ac 19:4-6<\/span>, where the disciples who had received only the baptism of John were baptized again with water<\/I> in the name of the Lord Jesus; and, after even this, the apostles prayed<\/I>, and laid<\/I> their hands on them<\/I>, before they were made partakers of the Holy Ghost. So we find that Jesus Christ had his water baptism<\/I> as well as John; and that even he who gave the baptism of the Holy Ghost<\/I> required the administration of water baptism<\/I> also. Therefore the baptism of the Spirit<\/I> did not supersede<\/I> the baptism by water<\/I>; nor indeed can it; as baptism<\/I>, as well as the supper of our Lord<\/I>, were intended, not only to be means of grace, but standing, irrefragable proofs<\/I> of the truth of Christianity.<\/P> <\/p>\n This question, as Act 8:36<\/span>, is without question, and denies that any can forbid water, that is, in order to baptize such as these. As if the apostle had argued thus: They that have the grace signified or promised, have a right unto the seal of the promise: but these Gentiles have the grace signified or promised in baptism; they had the inward part, and therefore the outward part could not be denied unto them. He that hath the inheritance, may claim the writings, wax, and parchment that belong unto it. <\/P> <\/p>\n 47. which have received the HolyGhost as well as we<\/B>and are thus, in all that is essential tosalvation, on a level with ourselves.<\/P><\/p>\n Can any man forbid water<\/strong>,…. The use of his river, or bath, or what conveniency he may have for baptizing persons: which shows, that it required a place of some quantity of water, sufficient for baptism by immersion, otherwise it would not be in the power of any man to hinder them having a little water, to be sprinkled or poured on the face: unless rather by water should be meant baptism itself; and then the sense is, who can forbid these persons the ordinance of baptism, or deny the administration of it to them? for such who have the Spirit of Christ, are openly Christ’s, and therefore have a right to his ordinances; such, being enlightened by him, are able to see to the end of the ordinance; and to such only can it be of use, and they only can please God in it: nor should it be forbidden them; this is to withstand God, act contrary to the commission of Christ, and resist the Holy Ghost; no, not though Gentiles: converted Gentiles, have as good a right as any to this ordinance; descent from Abraham gives no right to it; there is no difference among men under the Gospel dispensation; Christ’s commission reaches both to Jews and Gentiles; and there is but one baptism for both.<\/p>\n That these should not be baptized<\/strong>; though they are uncircumcised Gentiles:<\/p>\n which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we<\/strong>; the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; though, no doubt also, they had received the Spirit, as a spirit of illumination and conviction, as a spirit of regeneration, sanctification, and conversion, and as a spirit of faith and adoption, and as a witness, earnest, and pledge of future glory: and receiving him supposes, that they were without him before, and that he is a gift of God’s free grace unto them; and which is no other than the baptism of the Spirit, and is a necessary pre-requisite to water baptism; and they that have the one, are right subjects of the other; nor ought it to be denied them. From hence it appears that water baptism is an ordinance of Christ, to be continued under the Gospel dispensation; it was not only what was practised in the times of John and of Christ, but what was practised by the apostles after the ascension of Christ, in compliance with the commission he gave, which could have respect to no other baptism; since the apostles were not capable of baptizing with any other, not with the baptism of the Spirit: and it is certain from hence, and by other instances, that they did baptize in water; and from the apostle’s question it seems, that it must be by immersion in water, as before observed; and from what follows it is clear, that such who are partakers of the Holy Spirit and his grace, are the proper subjects of it.<\/p>\n Can any man forbid the water? <\/B> ( ?<\/SPAN><\/span>). The negative <\/SPAN><\/span> expects the answer No<\/I>. The evidence was indisputable that these Gentiles were converted and so were entitled to be baptized. See the similar idiom in Lu 6:39<\/span>. Note the article with “water.” Here the baptism of the Holy Spirit had preceded the baptism of water (Acts 1:5<\/span>; Acts 11:16<\/span>). “The greater had been bestowed; could the lesser be withheld?” (Knowling).<\/P> That these should not be baptized <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Ablative case of the articular first aorist passive infinitive of <\/SPAN><\/span> with the redundant negative after the verb of hindering (<\/SPAN><\/span>) and the accusative of general reference (<\/SPAN><\/span>). The redundant negative after the verb of hindering is not necessary though often used in ancient Greek and in the Koine<\/I> (papyri). Without it see Matt 19:14<\/span>; Acts 8:36<\/span> and with it see Luke 4:42<\/span>; Luke 24:16<\/span>; Acts 14:18<\/span>. Cf. Robertson, Grammar<\/I>, pp. 1061, 1094, 1171. The triple negatives here are a bit confusing to the modern mind (<\/SPAN><\/span> in the question, <\/SPAN><\/span>, to hinder or to cut off, <\/SPAN><\/span> with <\/SPAN><\/span>). Literally, Can any one cut off the water from the being baptized as to these? Meyer: “The water is in this animated language conceived as the element offering itself for the baptism.”<\/P> As well as we <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The argument was conclusive. God had spoken. Note the query of the eunuch to Philip (Ac 8:36<\/span>). <\/P> <\/p>\n Water [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Note the article : the water; co – ordinating the water with the Spirit (see 1Jo 5:8<\/span>), and designating water as the recognized and customary element of baptism. <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Can any man forbid water,”<\/strong> (meti to hudor dunati koluoai tis) “No one, not even one can (is able) to forbid water,” can he? There would have been no virtue in Peter’s having <\/em>asked for an objection from the Joppa church brethren, if they had not had a right to object. It is the “church ye,” not the preacher, who <\/em>has authority to baptize and receive or <\/em>reject baptism to individuals, Mat 28:18-20<\/span>; Mar 16:15<\/span>; Rom 14:1<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\n 2) “That these should not be baptized,”<\/strong> (tou me baptisthenak toutos) “That these Gentile <\/em>believers should not be baptized;” There are people who should not be baptized: 1. Those who have not repented to <\/em>life, Act 11:18<\/span>; Mat 3:7-9<\/span>; Matthew 2. Infants are not to be baptized, of believing or receiving Christ then, Mat 28:19-20<\/span>; Joh 4:1-2<\/span>; John 3. Those not believed to be in the faith are not to be baptized by the church ye,” Col 3:17<\/span>; Eph 3:21<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\n 3) “Which have received the Holy Ghost,<\/strong> (eitines to pneuma to hagion elabon) “Who received (have) <\/em>the Holy Spirit;” Those qualified to be baptized, without objection of church brethren, are those who have “received the <\/em>Holy Spirit,” else they are not the Lord’s, See? Rom 8:9<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\n 4) “As well as we?”<\/strong> (hos kai hemeis) “As also we have received?” as surely as we have received, can he? Is anyone able, defensively to <\/em>object to my baptizing these new converts? Peter inquired. On what grounds did he inquire? On the ground that he alone had no authority to baptize – – Such was vested in the church only, never given to any one man, after John the Baptist was sent from heaven to baptize, Joh 1:33<\/span>; Even Paul was not sent, authorized to do it independently, 1Co 1:17<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\n 47. Peter answered. Peter reasoneth from the thing to the sign; for, seeing that baptism is an addition or appurtenance of the spiritual grace, he which hath received the Spirit is also apt [fit] to receive baptism; and this is the (most) lawful order, that the minister admit those unto the receiving of the outward sign whom God hath testified to be his children by the mark and pledge of his Spirit; so that faith and doctrine are first. And whereas unlearned men infer thereupon that infants are not to be baptized, it is without all reason. I grant that those who are strangers from the Church must be taught before the sign of adoption be given them; but I say, that the children of the faithful which are born in the Church are from their mother’s womb of the household of the kingdom of God. Yea, the argument which they use preposterously against us do I turn back [retort] upon themselves; for, seeing that God hath adopted the children of the faithful before they be born, I conclude thereupon that they are not to be defrauded of the outward sign; otherwise men shall presume to take that from them which God hath granted them. As touching the manifest grace of the Spirit, there is no absurdity therein, if (720) it follow after baptism in them. <\/p>\n And as this testimony maketh nothing for maintenance of their error, so it doth strongly refute the error of the Papists, who tie the grace of the Spirit to the signs, and think that the same is fet [fetched] from heaven with enchantments, (721) as those witches did think that they did pull down the moon with their charms. But forasmuch as Luke saith that these had the Holy Ghost given them who were not as yet baptized, he showeth that the Spirit is not included in baptism. Lastly, we must note that the apostles were content with water alone when as they did baptize, (722) and would to God this plainness had been retained amongst their posterity, and that they had not gathered here and there divers trifles, whereof baptism is filth in Popery. They think that the worthiness of baptism is adorned with oil, salt, spittle, wax-candles, whereas they are rather filthy pollutions which corrupt the pure and natural [genuine] institution of Christ. <\/p>\n (720) “ Tempore,” in point of time. <\/p>\n (721) “ Eamque exorcismis non secus elici putant e coelo,” and think it can only be brought down from heaven by exorcisms. <\/p>\n (722) “ Ad conferendum baptismum,” in giving baptism. <\/p>\n (47) Can any man forbid water . . .<\/strong>The question was an appeal to the voice of reason. Could the outward sign be refused, when thus the inward and spiritual grace had been so manifestly bestowed? Ordinarily, as in the case of the Samaritans (Act. 8:15-17<\/span>), the gift of spiritual powers followed, by the subsequent act of laying on of hands, on the grace given in baptism. Now even that gift had been anticipated, and all that remained was the outward act of incorporation with the society which owned Christ as its Head. While the history thus bore its witness that the gifts of God may flow through other channels than the outward forms which Christ had appointed, it testified no less clearly that no spiritual gifts, however marvellous, superseded the necessity of obedience to the law of Christ which had appointed those outward forms. The exceptional gift was bestowed, in this instance, to remove the scruples which those of the circumcision might otherwise have felt as to admitting Gentiles, as such, to baptism; and having served that purpose, as a crucial instance, was never afterwards, so far as we know, repeated under like conditions.<\/p>\n 47<\/strong>. <\/strong> Forbid water<\/strong> Forbid the water to be applied in cleansing symbol upon the person; not forbid the person to be applied to the water. <\/p>\n Have received the Holy Ghost<\/strong> As they have received the reality so they should receive the symbol. Such was Peter’s reasoning. He did not, like a Quaker, reason that because they had the reality they did not need the symbol.<\/p>\n Act 10:47<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Can any man forbid water, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> That is, according to Whitby and Doddridge, “Who can forbid that water should be brought?” In which view of the clause one would obviously conclude, that they were baptized by pouring <\/em>water upon them, rather than byplunging <\/em>them in it. “Can any man, how strongly soever he might formerly be prejudiced against such a thing, any longer hesitate, or offer one just reason, why these uncircumcised Gentiles should not be baptized with water, seeing theyhave received the baptism of the HolySpirit, in the same honourable manner that we, Christ’s apostles and first converts, have received it: , even as we?” <\/em>It deserves to be remarked,that of all the institutions of our holy religion, that of water baptism <\/em>was least proper to be called in question; being most invincibly established by the practice both of St. Peter and St. Paul. The former finding that the houshold of Cornelius had received the Holy Ghost, regards it as a certain direction for him to admit them into the church of Christ; which he does by the initiatory rite of water baptism. <\/em>St. Paul, in his travels through the Lesser Asia, finding some of the Jewish converts who had never heard of the Holy Ghost, and on inquiry understanding thatthey had only been baptized by water unto John’s baptism, thought fit to baptize them with water in the name of the Lord Jesus; that is to say, to admit them into the church: and then laying hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, <\/em>&c. See ch. Act 19:4-6<\/span>. Yet notwithstanding these two memorable transactions, there is a people who reject water baptism, pretending that water baptism <\/em>is John’s baptism, and only a type of baptism by the Holy Ghost, <\/em>or by fire: <\/em>so that when this last came in use, the former ceased, and was abolished. In the two histories, given above, however, these fancies are fully reproved, and in such a manner, as if the histories had been recorded for no other purpose; for in the adventure of St. Paul, the water baptism <\/em>of Jesus <\/em>is expressly distinguished from the water baptism <\/em>of John; <\/em>and in that of St. Peter it appears, that water baptism was used for an admittance into the church of Christ, even after the administration of baptism by fire, or the communicated power of the Holy Ghost. St. Peter does not say, “They have the baptism of the Spirit, therefore they do not need baptism with water;” but just the contrary, “They have received the Spirit, therefore baptize them with water.” Indeed this question were easily decided, if we would take the plain word of God for our rule. Either men have received the Holy Ghost or not; if they have not, Repent, <\/em>saith God, and be baptised, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: <\/em>if they are already baptized with the Holy Ghost, then, Who can forbid water? <\/em>We may just observe further, that these two heads of the missions to the two great divisions of mankind, the Jews and Gentiles, here acted in each other’s provincesPeter, <\/em>the apostle of the Jews, <\/em>administering baptism to the Gentile <\/em>household of Cornelius; <\/em>and Paul, <\/em>the apostle of the Gentiles, <\/em>administering the same rite to the Jewish converts: and why was this crossing of hands, but to obviate that simple evasion, that water baptism was only partial and temporary. <\/p>\n Act 10:47-48<\/span> . Can any one, then, withhold the water, in order that these be not baptized?<\/em> The water is in this animated language conceived as the element offering itself for the baptism. So urgent now appeared the necessity for completing on the human side the divine work that had miraculously emerged. Bengel, moreover, well remarks: “Non dicit: jam habent Spiritum, ergo aqua carere possunt.” The conjunction of water<\/em> and Spirit could not but obtain its necessary recognition.<\/p>\n . .] genitive<\/em> according to the construction , and after verbs of hindering, as in Act 14:18<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] as also we<\/em> , the recipients of the Spirit of Pentecost. This refers to the prominent and peculiar character of the enraptured speaking, by which the fact then occurring showed itself as of a similar kind to that which happened on Pentecost (Act 11:15<\/span> ). But cannot be held as a proof that by is to be understood a speaking in foreign languages (in opposition to Baumgarten, who thinks that he sees in our passage “the connecting link between the miracle of Pentecost and the speaking with tongues in the Corinthian church”), for it rather shows the essential identity of the Pentecostal event with the later speaking with tongues, and points back from the mouth of the apostle to the historical<\/em> form of that event, when it had not yet been transformed by tradition into a speaking of languages<\/em> .<\/p>\n ] The personal performance of baptism did not necessarily belong to the destined functions of the apostolic office. See on 1Co 1:17<\/span> .<\/p>\n . .] belongs to ., but leaves untouched the words with which the baptism was performed. As, namely, the name of Jesus Christ is the spiritual basis of the being baptized (see on Act 2:38<\/span> , comp. Act 8:35<\/span> f.) and the end to which it refers (Act 19:5<\/span> ), so it is also conceived as the entire holy sphere, in which<\/em> it is accomplished, and out of which it cannot take place.<\/p>\n ] to remain<\/em> . And he remained and had fellowship at table with them, Act 11:3<\/span> . So much the more surprising is his at Antioch, Gal 2:11<\/span> ff.<\/p>\n 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 47. Can forbid water<\/strong> ] Plain water, without oil, salt, spittle, cream, or other popish additaments. <\/p>\n 47<\/strong> .] One great end of the unexpected effusion of the Holy Spirit was entirely to preclude the question which otherwise could not but have arisen, ‘Must not these men be circumcised before baptism<\/em> ?’<\/p>\n <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> ] The TWO great<\/em> PARTS of full and complete baptism<\/em> : the latter infinitely greater than, but not superseding the necessity of, the former. The article should here certainly be expressed: Can any forbid<\/strong> THE WATER to these who have received<\/strong> THE SPIRIT?<\/p>\n The expression , used with ., is interesting, as shewing that the practice was to bring the water to the candidates, not the candidates to the water<\/em> . This, which would be implied by the word under any circumstances, is rendered certain, when we remember that they were assembled in the house<\/em> .<\/p>\n Act 10:47<\/span> . . , cf.<\/em> Act 14:18<\/span> : on construction, Burton, p. 159; so also in LXX and classical Greek, Blass, Gram.<\/em> , p. 230; Viteau, Le Grec du N. T.<\/em> , p. 172 (1893). , quippe qui<\/em> , so Blass in this passage. : “the water” R.V., not simply “water” as A.V., as Bengel admirably says, “Non dicit: jam habent Spiritum, ergo aqua carere possunt”. In baptism both the water and the Spirit were required, Act 11:16<\/span> . The greater had been bestowed; could the lesser be withheld? See the striking passage in Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood<\/em> , p. 108, on the fact that Cornelius and his companions, even after they had first received the presence of the Holy Ghost, were nevertheless ordered to be baptised.<\/p>\n any man = any one. Greek. tis. App-123. <\/p>\n forbid. Same as “hinder” in Act 8:36. <\/p>\n baptized. App-115. <\/p>\n as well as we = even as we also. <\/p>\n 47.] One great end of the unexpected effusion of the Holy Spirit was entirely to preclude the question which otherwise could not but have arisen, Must not these men be circumcised before baptism?<\/p>\n ] The TWO great PARTS of full and complete baptism: the latter infinitely greater than, but not superseding the necessity of, the former. The article should here certainly be expressed: Can any forbid THE WATER to these who have received THE SPIRIT?<\/p>\n The expression , used with ., is interesting, as shewing that the practice was to bring the water to the candidates, not the candidates to the water. This, which would be implied by the word under any circumstances, is rendered certain, when we remember that they were assembled in the house.<\/p>\n Act 10:47. , water) He uses the term water for baptism by (less expressed than is implied). When the greater thing has been given, that which is less is added by the giver, and is not despised by the receiver. He does not say, They now already have the Spirit; therefore they can do without the water. They are not circumcised, and yet they are baptized. Therefore the footing on which baptism stands is much higher; comp. ch. Act 15:8-9, which passage shows they were not to be circumcised; and yet Peter considered that they ought to be baptized.-, forbid) ch. Act 11:17.-, any one) either I or any of the brethren.<\/p>\n , He commanded) He did not baptize with his own hands; there were others present to whom that office could be becomingly delegated; Act 10:45. Comp. 1Co 1:17, [Act 10:15, Lest any should say, I baptized in my own name.]-, of the Lord) Christ Jesus.-) to tarry longer,- , some days) Golden days.[65]<\/p>\n [65] Bengel, J. A. (1860). Vol. 2: Gnomon of the New Testament (M. E. Bengel & J. C. F. Steudel, Ed.) (A. R. Fausset, Trans.) (510-610). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.<\/p>\n Act 8:12, Act 8:36, Act 11:15-17, Act 15:8, Act 15:9, Gen 17:24-26, Rom 4:11, Rom 10:12 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Mat 28:19 – baptizing Joh 20:22 – Receive Act 8:16 – only Act 11:17 – what 1Co 12:10 – divers Heb 6:2 – the doctrine<\/p>\n Act 10:47. Can any forbid water? The true translation is the water,the baptismal water,the water sanctified unto the mystical washing away of sin. The highest blessing of all, the Holy Spirit, had been received: hence the minor gift, which was emblematic of the other, and which procured admission into the Church of Christ, could not be refused. Moreover, there is a strong testimony here to the importance of Baptism. On the one hand, indeed, nothing can be more emphatic than this narrative in its assertion that God can communicate His highest spiritual gifts irrespectively of all ordinances; but, on the other hand, it is asserted with equal emphasis, that divinely-appointed ordinances are not to be disregarded. Non dicit, says Bengel, Habent Spiritum, ergo aqu carere possunt. Lechler, in Langes Homiletical Commentary, has a striking sentence at this place: The peculiar manner in which the question is expressed sounds as though there was attributed to the water of Baptism conscious and energetic will,as though Peter had said, If no one has been able to hinder the Spirit from coming upon these people, so also no one can restrain the water which wills to flow over them at Baptism. Another thought also comes into the mind in considering these incidents. The baptisms appear to have taken place in the house; and the question arises whether they were effected by sprinkling or by immersion.<\/p>\n Which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we. The fact that in this instance, and in this instance only, the Holy Ghost was received previously to Baptism, has been the subject of many notes by commentators. There was sufficient reason, on this occasion, if we may reverently say so, for deviation from the common rule. No ordinary attestation would have sufficed to make the Divine command perfectly clear, that the Gentiles were to be admitted at once, and on equal terms with Jews, to the blessings of Christianity. This was in fact a second Pentecost: and may we not add that there was a close parallel between this occasion and the first Pentecost, in the fact that the open communication of the Spirit took place in both cases before the administration of baptism? (See Act 2:4; Act 2:41.)<\/p>\n Act 10:47-48. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, &c. Peter, yielding to the force of evidence, however contrary to his former prejudices, with great propriety asks this question. He does not say, They have the baptism of the Spirit, therefore they do not need baptism with water. But just the contrary: If they have received the Spirit, then baptize them with water. How easily is this question decided, if we will take the word of God for our guide! Either men have revived the Holy Ghost, or not. If they have not, Repent, saith God, and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If they have, if they are already baptized with the Holy Ghost, then who can forbid water? As none of the brethren that came with him pretended to object any thing against it, he commanded them to be baptized Immediately; choosing to make use of the ministry of his brethren in performing that rite, rather than to do it with his own hands, that by this means the expression of their consent might be the more explicit; in the name of the Lord Which implies the Father, who anointed him, and the Spirit, with which he was anointed to his office. But as these Gentiles had before believed in God the Father, and could not but now believe in the Holy Ghost, under whose powerful influence they were at this very time, there was the less need of taking notice, that they were baptized into the belief and profession of the sacred Three; though doubtless the apostles generally administered the ordinance in that very form which Christ himself had prescribed. <\/p>\n 47, 48. The true explanation of this unusual circumstance is given in the following words, together with Peter’s own explanation of it in the eleventh chapter: “Then Peter answered, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be immersed, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be immersed in the name of the Lord. Then they requested him to remain some days.” The use that Peter made of it expresses the design of its occurrence. That use was to remove all possible objection to the immersion of the parties. In any other case which had occurred, or which occurred after this, no such objection could have existed. The very fact, therefore, which led to this unusual occurrence, was an exceptional circumstance, which furnishes the strongest proof that this case is not a precedent for imitation in this particular.<\/p>\n Before he was interrupted, Peter had already proceeded so far with his discourse as to reach the subject of faith, and of remission of sins, and immersion must have been the next word upon his lips, if he had proceeded after the model of his sermon on Pentecost. The interruption, therefore, did not break the thread of his discourse, but enabled him to proceed with greater confidence to the very conclusion which he had intended. He first appeals to the brethren, to know if any objection yet lingered in their minds, and finding none, he commanded them to be immersed in the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n Let us now recall the fact that Cornelius had been directed to send for Peter to hear “words by which he and all his family might be saved.” Peter has come, and delivered his message. He has told him of Christ, in whom the man now believes. He has commanded him to be immersed, and it has been done. This is the whole story of the conversion. When it was accomplished, the painful anxiety which he must have experienced during the last four days was removed, and his present happiness is indicated by the cordiality with which he invited Peter to remain with him some days.<\/p>\n We now have three individual cases of conversion before us, each detailed with great minuteness. In some particulars they are precisely alike; in others, they are quite different. But they are all three genuine cases of conversion; and, therefore, the points in which they differ are not essential to conversion, but are accidental circumstances arising from the peculiarities of the individual case. Now, in order that we may learn what is essential to conversion, and what among all the cases on record, are accidental circumstances, we must be guided by the following rule. Whatever is common to all cases is necessary to a scriptural conversion; but whatever we find in one case which certainly did not occur in all others, is a peculiarity of the individual cases in which it occurs. The points in which all the recorded cases agree are the points in which all subsequent conversions must agree with them. The points in which they differ are points in which subsequent conversions may differ from them. In order to determine that certain features are not essential, it is only necessary to find cases in which they do not occur. In order to determine that any one is essential, we must find it in all cases, or find it prescribed in some general law expressly designed to govern all cases.<\/p>\n While the three cases already before us are fresh in the memory, and before points of difference become multiplied by additional cases, so as to confuse the understanding, we propose to institute a comparison between them, in the light of the rule just prescribed. Leaving out of view the difference in character, occupation, and social position, of the eunuch, Saul, and Cornelius, which show only that the gospel is adapted to all men without regard to previous character or position, we will only notice those differences which might form the ground of erroneous conclusions. First, then, in the cases of the eunuch and Cornelius, there was the visible appearance of an angel; and many converts of modern times have related, as part of their experience in conversion, similar apparitions. But there certainly was not in Saul’s case the appearance of an angel; therefore, such an appearance is not necessary to conversion. Second, The Lord himself appeared to Saul and conversed with him; but he certainly did not to either the eunuch or Cornelius. It is not necessary, then, to see the Lord. Third, Saul mourned and prayed for three days after he believed, and before he was immersed; but Cornelius and the eunuch did not; therefore, protracted sorrow and prayer are not necessary to conversion. Fourth, Cornelius was immersed in the Spirit, but Saul and the eunuch were not; therefore, immersion in the Spirit is not essential, but a circumstance arising from the peculiarity of a single case.<\/p>\n The points in which these cases agree are chiefly these: they all heard the gospel preached, with miraculous evidence to sustain it; they all believed what they heard; they were all commanded to be immersed; they were all immersed; and after immersion they were all happy. If, then, we do not hereafter encounter recorded cases from which some of these items are certainly absent, we must conclude that at least all of these are necessary to scriptural conversion. When other cases are before us, we will institute further and more complete comparisons.<\/p>\n We would be glad to know more of the history of Cornelius, so as to determine how far, even in times of peace, the profession of arms is compatible with the faithful service of the Prince of Peace. He is the only soldier of whose conversion we have an account in the New Testament, and of his subsequent career we know nothing. Whether, amid the scenes of blood and desolation not many years after most wickedly visited upon Judea by the army in which he was an officer, he resigned his office, or made shipwreck of the faith, we can not know till the great day. Let it be noted, however, that his is an instance of a soldier becoming a Christian, not of a Christian becoming a soldier. It furnishes a precedent for the former, but not for the latter. Whether Peter instructed him to resign his position in the army or not, is to be determined not by the silence of the historian in reference to it, but by first determining whether military service is compatible with the moral teachings of the New Testament. If Jesus and the apostles had been, for more than thirty years previous to the publication of Acts, teaching that Christians should not take the sword, it was not at all necessary for Luke to say that Peter so instructed Cornelius.<\/p>\n 10:47 {9} Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?<\/p>\n (9) Baptism does not sanctify or make those holy who receive it, but is an outward sign to the world of the profession of faith. (Ed.)<\/p>\n Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 47. Can any man forbid water, &c.] Though the gift of the Spirit has been made so apparent, yet St Peter does not omit the outward sign which Christ had ordained (Mat 28:19) for … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 10:47”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27265\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"