Atos 11
John Phillips · Citado em PreceptAustin
Atos 11
Phillips says "We want to cry out: "Come on, Andrew! Don't you have a good word for your own brother? John! Why remain silent when your fellow apostle and partner is attacked?"" Saying - Present tense indicating they did not let up, suggesting initially Peter could not even make a defense at first. As Jews who had been raised in a culture steeped with tradition, what they were basically saying to Peter is that he was now ritually unclean himself for having social intercourse with unclean Gentiles! What is absurd about this fuss is there is not one passage in the Old Testament that says the Jews are not to eat with Gentiles. Their "prejudice led to a myopic view of the situation." (Larkin) This was a "fleshly fabrication" by men zealous for the Law (which paradoxically did not even prohibit what they prohibited)! This point emphasizes that it is always critical to test men's "traditions" by going back to "what saith the Lord?" As Larkin laments "How sad it is when man-made rules designed to protect our holiness and bring us close to God prevent us from seeing and rejoicing when God grants salvation to those who had not known his grace." (IVP NT Commentary) "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them." - The accusation is two-fold - (1) entering a Gentile abode ("You were a guest in the home of" ) and (2) eating with Gentiles (with possible intake of "unclean" food), both of which were considered abominations to Jews and were "mistakes" any self-respecting Jew would never commit. Although Luke does not state so, it is very likely that the circumcised brethren were upset that they had baptized Cornelius without having him circumcised first. Circumcision was to become a major stumbling block for the Jews and would come to a head at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 (cf Acts 15:5+).
Atos 11
Phillips writes that "Then, too, mention of the vision would direct their thoughts at once to the dietary laws of Leviticus 11:1-47+. They knew those laws by heart, as Peter did. The sheet descending from and ascending to heaven filled with creatures ceremonially unclean gripped them. Nor did the fact that the thing was done three times escape them. A threefold testimony was crucial in Israel to establishing the truth of a matter. That God had pronounced the creatures clean and thus put an end to Peter's religious scruples was remarkable and wholly unexpected. That such diverse creatures should be received finally and emphatically into heaven was astonishing. The revolutionary nature of the vision must have impressed Peter's listeners almost as much as it had impressed him. Evidently the vision heralded some drastic changes in the Levitical law, upon which they had cut their eyeteeth and by which they had lived since infancy. The dietary laws controlled every facet of their everyday lives; for the Hellenists, the Jews of the Dispersion, those laws protected them from assimilation into the great Gentile world in which their lot was cast. Burdensome the laws might have been, but they were tremendously effective in keeping a Jew a Jew. Was all that now to be changed? " (Exploring Acts) Acts 11:7 "I also heard a voice saying to me, 'Get up, Peter; kill and eat.' KJV Acts 11:7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. I also heard a voice saying to me, 'Get up (anistemi), Peter; kill and eat. - See commentary on Acts 10:13 is virtually verbatim... A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” (Acts 10:13) Steven Ger - As had Saul on the road to Damascus, Peter now hears a bat kol, the divine voice of God from heaven. The voice commanded Peter to pick himself up, walk over to the assembled menagerie, slaughter an animal of his choice and eat it.(Acts - Twenty-First Century Commentary) Wikipedia on bat kol - In Judaism bat kol or bat ḳōl (Hebrew: בּת קול, literally "daughter of voice", "voice of God") is a "heavenly or divine voice which proclaims God's will or judgment."[1] It signifies the ruach ha-kodesh (רוח הקודש, "the spirit of holiness") or serves as a metonym for God; "but it differed essentially from the Prophets", though these were delegates or mouthpieces of ruaḥ ha-kodesh. Acts 11:8 "But I said, 'By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' KJV Acts 11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. common Mark 7:2; Romans 14:14 unclean Leviticus 10:10; 11:47; Ezra 9:11,12; Hosea 9:3; Romans 14:14; 1 Corinthians 7:14 But I said, 'By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth - See commentary on Acts 10:14 is similar except a different phrase for placing something in one's mouth... But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” (Acts 10:14) The Jewish listeners would certainly identify with this statement by Peter, and this would add credence to his story. He had wrestled with the same prejudice and traditions that they were now wrestling with, but he had overcome these hindrances to the spread of the Gospel. The prophet Ezekiel expressed a similar sentiment when instructed by the Lord to eat "Ezekiel Bread" (Ezekiel 4:9-13) replying to the Lord “Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I have never been defiled; for from my youth until now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has any unclean meat ever entered my mouth.” (Ezekiel 4:14+). Acts 11:9 "But a voice from heaven answered a second time, 'What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.' KJV Acts 11:9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. What Acts 10:28,34,35; 15:9; 1 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 9:13,14 But a voice from heaven answered a second time, 'What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy - ("you must not consider ritually unclean!: = NET) See commentary on Acts 10:15 is virtually verbatim... Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10:15) Larkin - The dietary laws that marked the distinction between Jew and non-Jew are abolished. No longer consider unholy (koinos) (2840)(koinoo) means to consider ritually unclean and ceremonially disqualified. Koinoo is a command in the present imperative with a negative which is a call to stop an action already in progress or to forbid this as one's habitual attitude. Acts 11:10 "This happened three times, and everything was drawn back up into the sky. KJV Acts 11:10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. This happened three times Numbers 24:10; John 13:38; 21:17; 2 Corinthians 12:8 A THREE FOLD TESTIMONY This happened three times - If God says something once, it is incredibly important, but three times! So these critical Jews realized there was something monumental about what Peter was experiencing. Peter emphasized the repetitive nature of the Vision. He may had recalled the Word of God from Solomon.. And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart. (Eccl 4:12) And everything was drawn back up into the sky - See commentary on Acts 10:16 is similar except now drawn back up replaces was taken up.. This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. (Acts 10:16) John Phillips - Even the dullest scholar in the school of God could hardly miss the point of a lesson that was gone over three times by the teacher. "Precept upon precept; line upon line... here a little, and there a little," was the Holy Spirit's way of teaching the dull hearts of Israel (Isa. 28:10). "Three times," Peter said. "God had to drill this thing into me. I couldn't see it. Then I wouldn't see it. Now I can see it clearly." (Exploring Acts) Acts 11:11 "And behold, at that moment three men appeared at the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea. KJV Acts 11:11 And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. Acts 9:10-12; 10:17,18; Exodus 4:14,27 THE VISITATION FOLLOWING THE VISION And behold - Peter uses this interjection to get their attention. Behold (2400)(idou) is the second person singular aorist middle imperative of eidon which means to see, perceive, look at. In the NT idou is used as a demonstrative particle that draws attention to what follows. Idou in the middle voice means "you yourself look, see, perceive!" The aorist imperative is a command emphasizing "Do it now! Don't delay!"
Atos 11
Phillips comments that "It is a great thing when contemplating some course of action to be sure that we have the mind of the Spirit. That is true of all of life's decisions but particularly so when contemplating some major change of direction or some wholly new course of action. The Holy Spirit does not lack for means to impress His will upon us, but usually we are in too big a hurry. Peter himself, by nature, was a very impetuous man. In this whole incident, however, the Holy Spirit impresses upon us how Peter's natural impulses were kept under the restraint of the Holy Spirit. If Peter had been left to himself he would either have stubbornly refused to go or else would have blundered by himself into a situation that would have permanently impaired his usefulness as the apostle to the circumcision. Where the Holy Spirit leads, all is done decently and in order." (Exploring Acts) Related Resources: How can I recognize the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Is a believer supposed to be able to feel the Holy Spirit? When / How do we receive the Holy Spirit? What is the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives today? How can I receive divine guidance? Without misgivings (without making distinctions)(1252)(see discussion of diakrino in Acts 10:20 to describe the Spirit instructing Peter to go downstairs to "accompany (the 3 men from Cornelius) without misgivings (diakrino)." The root idea of diakrino is to make distinctions and the Spirit is telling Peter not to treat the Gentiles as he would have had the dietary laws still been in place, but instead, now to make no distinctions regarding the Gentiles. These six brethren also went with me - See commentary on Acts 10:23 where the six brethren are described as "some of the brethren from Joppa" who "accompanied him." Stephen Ger - According to the Torah, two or three witnesses were sufficient to establish a matter (Dt. 19:15). Peter had brought along triple the necessary number (again demonstrating his natural affinity for things in triplicate). NET Note - Six witnesses is three times more than what would normally be required. They could confirm the events were not misrepresented by Peter. John
Atos 11
Phillips - The men of the circumcision in the Jerusalem church had been effectively checkmated by the Holy Spirit. They must have looked at each other, looked hard at Peter, and looked at Peter's witnesses, solid citizens of the kingdom, standing by, nodding their heads. They must have looked at the Hellenists beaming at Peter's story. It was a large and bitter pill to swallow. Two thousand years of growing Jewish prejudice against Gentiles had to be gulped down. But it was evident, even to the narrowest, most exclusive, and insular of them, that there was nothing they could possibly say against Peter. His story was evidently an account of God's clear leading, and his earnestness was unmistakable. The conclusions he had reached were incontrovertible. Cornelius and the Gentiles had been accepted by God as equal heirs of the grace of God, first-class citizens in the kingdom, fellow members of the Body of Christ.
Atos 11
Phillips adds that "We find the word used, significantly enough, in Luke's account of the burial of Jesus. When Joseph of Arimathaea and the women followers of Jesus had put Jesus' body in the tomb we read, "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested [hesuchazo] the sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56+). Those of the circumcision did what those women did. They stopped working. They had to. What else could they do? A "Sabbath rest" on the issue (of the Gentiles being saved) came over the church. With those of the circumcision it was a somewhat reluctant and grudging cessation of active opposition, just as those devout women had grudgingly ceased ministering to the mortal remains of Jesus. The same word is used by Luke in another connection. When the enemies of Jesus brought Him, on the Sabbath day, a certain man who had dropsy, they watched Him like hawks. Would He violate the Sabbath? Jesus was not intimidated. "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?" He said to the lawyers present. Luke says, "And they held their peace [hesuchazo]" (Luke 14:3-4+). It was the grudging silence of those who were cornered and who decided it was best to say nothing." Ray