Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Acts 11

News of Peter’s direct approach to Gentiles at Caesarea and his acceptance of them apart from the strictures of Judaism reached Jerusalem and the believers there before Peter himself did. This news caused great alarm both within the church and among the Jewish populace generally. The Hellenistic believers had stirred up much antagonism by their liberal attitudes toward the tenets of Jewish popular piety (cf. 6:8–7:56). The immediate consequences were the martyrdom of Stephen and the expulsion of the believers from areas under Sanhedrin control (cf. 7:57–8:3). Now if it were really true that Peter, the leading member of the apostolic band, had gone further in disregarding the traditional laws of Judaism in favor of a direct association with Gentiles, what goodwill still remained toward believers in Jerusalem would be quickly dissipated. The practical implications for the existence and the mission of the Christian church in Jerusalem were grave, and such practical considerations undoubtedly led to principial questions. Peter’s return to Jerusalem, therefore, was like lighting a match in highly combustible air. “The circumcised believers” (i.e, “Jewish Christians”) immediately confronted Peter and charged, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” This charge, while traditionally worded, was tantamount to saying that Peter had set aside Christianity’s Jewish features and thereby seriously endangered its relation with the nation.

News of Peter’s direct approach to Gentiles at Caesarea and his acceptance of them apart from the strictures of Judaism reached Jerusalem and the believers there before Peter himself did. This news caused great alarm both within the church and among the Jewish populace generally. The Hellenistic believers had stirred up much antagonism by their liberal attitudes toward the tenets of Jewish popular piety (cf. 6:8–7:56). The immediate consequences were the martyrdom of Stephen and the expulsion of the believers from areas under Sanhedrin control (cf. 7:57–8:3). Now if it were really true that Peter, the leading member of the apostolic band, had gone further in disregarding the traditional laws of Judaism in favor of a direct association with Gentiles, what goodwill still remained toward believers in Jerusalem would be quickly dissipated. The practical implications for the existence and the mission of the Christian church in Jerusalem were grave, and such practical considerations undoubtedly led to principial questions. Peter’s return to Jerusalem, therefore, was like lighting a match in highly combustible air. “The circumcised believers” (i.e, “Jewish Christians”) immediately confronted Peter and charged, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” This charge, while traditionally worded, was tantamount to saying that Peter had set aside Christianity’s Jewish features and thereby seriously endangered its relation with the nation.

News of Peter’s direct approach to Gentiles at Caesarea and his acceptance of them apart from the strictures of Judaism reached Jerusalem and the believers there before Peter himself did. This news caused great alarm both within the church and among the Jewish populace generally. The Hellenistic believers had stirred up much antagonism by their liberal attitudes toward the tenets of Jewish popular piety (cf. 6:8–7:56). The immediate consequences were the martyrdom of Stephen and the expulsion of the believers from areas under Sanhedrin control (cf. 7:57–8:3). Now if it were really true that Peter, the leading member of the apostolic band, had gone further in disregarding the traditional laws of Judaism in favor of a direct association with Gentiles, what goodwill still remained toward believers in Jerusalem would be quickly dissipated. The practical implications for the existence and the mission of the Christian church in Jerusalem were grave, and such practical considerations undoubtedly led to principial questions. Peter’s return to Jerusalem, therefore, was like lighting a match in highly combustible air. “The circumcised believers” (i.e, “Jewish Christians”) immediately confronted Peter and charged, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” This charge, while traditionally worded, was tantamount to saying that Peter had set aside Christianity’s Jewish features and thereby seriously endangered its relation with the nation.

Peter defended his actions by recounting his experiences at Joppa and Caesarea, with an emphasis on (1) the divine initiative in all that transpired and (2) his inability to withstand God. Thus he recounts the details of the vision that came to him at Joppa (vv.5–10), of his reception by Cornelius (vv.11–14), and of the Spirit’s coming upon the group gathered in Cornelius’s house (vv.15–17). It was the Lord, insisted Peter, who gave him the vision and who explained its meaning. It was the Spirit who told him to have “no hesitation” to go with the messengers to Caesarea and enter Cornelius’s house. And it was God who took the initiative by baptizing Cornelius and his companions with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, concluded Peter, “Who was I to think that I could oppose God?” By giving a second witness to this story of the Gospel reaching out to Gentiles (cf. introductory comments on 2:42–12:24), likely taken from a different source than ch. 10, Luke is providing greater support for his theme of the legitimacy of a mission to Gentiles.

Peter defended his actions by recounting his experiences at Joppa and Caesarea, with an emphasis on (1) the divine initiative in all that transpired and (2) his inability to withstand God. Thus he recounts the details of the vision that came to him at Joppa (vv.5–10), of his reception by Cornelius (vv.11–14), and of the Spirit’s coming upon the group gathered in Cornelius’s house (vv.15–17). It was the Lord, insisted Peter, who gave him the vision and who explained its meaning. It was the Spirit who told him to have “no hesitation” to go with the messengers to Caesarea and enter Cornelius’s house. And it was God who took the initiative by baptizing Cornelius and his companions with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, concluded Peter, “Who was I to think that I could oppose God?” By giving a second witness to this story of the Gospel reaching out to Gentiles (cf. introductory comments on 2:42–12:24), likely taken from a different source than ch. 10, Luke is providing greater support for his theme of the legitimacy of a mission to Gentiles.