That Word Above All Earthly Powers: The Book of ActsGrace Community Church Sunday SchoolActs 9:32-11:18

I first saw The Fellowship of the Ring as a freshman in college. I hadn’t read the books, so I didn’t have any expectations going in to watching the movie. Fellowship is a 2.5- or 3-hour movie, and it doesn’t end. It doesn’t end on a cliffhanger. It runs smack into a wall and stops. I remember sitting on the couch in my friend’s apartment, jaw agape, for several minutes.

You mean you’re just going to stop there?!? You mean I have to wait until next December to see the next one?!?

Luke’s structure in Acts can sometimes leave us feeling the same way. We’ve been introduced to Saul, seen him powerfully saved by Jesus, seen him powerfully preach Jesus, and now…Luke just drops him off at Tarsus and leaves him for three and a half chapters. He’s going to do something similar at the end of the book: Paul has been determined to get to Rome, and he gets there…and Luke leaves him under house arrest in Rome, preaching the gospel. Not a word about trial before Caesar (the whole point of going to Rome in the first place). Nothing.

At first, we want to feel frustrated with Luke for ruining a good story. But Luke’s reply would be, “But I’m not telling the story of Paul. Or Peter for that matter. I’m telling the story of Jesus, His word, His Church, and His victory over the world.”

Luke returns to Peter, because this next section—through chapter 12—is the hinge of the book of Acts. The Gospel has moved past every barrier thus far, but now the Church has to face the last major barrier: the inclusion of the Gentiles.1

The Ethiopian eunuch in chapter 8 was a Gentile, but because he moved back home, the Church wasn’t confronted with how to live with and understand Gentile Christians. But with Cornelius, the issue takes center stage.

This section can be understood in terms of Peter following Jesus: in healing ministry, in going to the lost, and in celebrating the salvation of sinners.

Peter follows Jesus’ healing ministry (9:32-43).

One of Luke’s major themes in Acts is that he is still writing about Jesus. He tells Theophilus that his Gospel was the record of what Jesus “began to do and teach,” so by implication, Jesus is still doing and teaching in Acts. It’s hard to see this more clearly than in these final verses of chapter 9.2

1 [W]hat Luke is doing here is to bring us back into Peter’s story, having inserted Saul with appropriate and violent suddenness into the narrative of the Jerusalem apostles. And he is getting us ready, in particular, for another long view, as Peter, having found his way down to Joppa, will be called from there on another and more widely significant errand. (Joppa, by the way, is on the coast north-west of Jerusalem, near today’s Tel Aviv. Lydda is about ten miles inland. The area known as Sharon is the coastal plain north from there, on the way to the port of Caesarea.) But there is no such thing as a small errand in the kingdom of God (Wright, 152-153). Both apostles (despite their different callings) had a key role to play in liberating the gospel from its Jewish clothing and opening the kingdom of God to the Gentiles (Stott, KL 3177-3179).2 The apostle Peter is portrayed as an effective agent through whom the risen Lord by his Spirit continued to act and to teach (Stott, KL 3186-3187).

Peter is doing itinerant ministry (like Jesus), and he comes to Lydda, a town about 25 miles from Jerusalem on the way to the Mediterranean coast.3 There in Lydda, Peter found Aeneas, who had been paralyzed and bedridden for eight years. Peter very simply says to him, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and make your bed.” Immediately Aeneas got up, and those in Lydda and nearby Sharon heard of it, saw Aeneas, and “turned to the Lord” (9:35 CSB).

This is an almost detail-for-detail parallel with Mark 2. Hostile critics of the Bible assume that Luke and Mark drew from a common source of legends and therefore came up with similar stories. The point is, in fact, their similarity, but precisely because they are both historically accurate. Peter is doing exactly what Jesus did, exactly how He did it.

Mark 2 Acts 9Paralytic (2:3) Paralytic (9:33)Brought to Jesus (2:3-4) Peter brings Jesus to him (9:33)Healed by simple command (2:10-11) Healed by simple command (9:34)“Get up, take your mat, and go home” (2:11) “Get up and make your bed” (9:34)“Immediately he got up” (2:12) “immediately he got up” (9:34)“…in front of everyone…they were all astounded and gave glory to God” (2:12)

“all who lived in Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord” (9:35)

Physical healing a sign of forgiven sins (2:5, 9-11)

Physical healing led to many being forgiven (9:35)

The parallels with the stories of Jesus healing a paralytic (Luke 5:17–26) and raising the daughter of Jairus (Luke 8:41–56) are obvious, but it is also significant that later Paul performs similar mighty works (14:8–12; 20:7–12). In both cases the effect of Peter’s acts is to lead the local people to faith (Marshall, 178).

We see Peter not only doing the same miracles in the same way as Jesus, but also with the same goals and results as well. Neither Jesus nor Peter (nor the other apostles or prophets4) performed miracles for the sake of performing miracles. They were demonstrations of the kindness of God for the purpose of revealing the forgiveness of sins that only comes through the name of Jesus.5

The question often arises about miracles today. John taught us to test the spirits to see if they are from Jesus or not. If miracles occur and do not draw our attention to Jesus but rather to the miracle-worker, it’s not from Jesus. Even Pharaoh’s magicians copied Moses’ signs; the difference was not the presence of power but the source and strength thereof.

In nearby Joppa (modern-day Jaffa, about 12 miles away,6 a faithful saint fell sick and died. Tabitha (Aramaic) or Dorcas (Greek) was a woman who diligently cared for those around her, making clothes among her many labors of love for the poor in Jesus’ name. When she died, her body was washed (as normal) but placed in an upper room (not normal). They had heard Peter was in nearby Joppa, so they sent for him to come.

[I]nstead of anointing it and burying it [i.e., Dorcas’ body], they laid it in an upper room, where it would enjoy privacy. These actions suggest that they had some hopes that Tabitha might be raised from the dead, and Luke’s readers might be reminded of somewhat similar episodes in the Old Testament where

3 Lydda (Old Testament Lod) lay on the route from Jerusalem to the coast, about 25 miles (40 km) distant (Marshall, 178, italics original).4 Similar miracles had endorsed the prophetic ministry of Elijah and Elisha (Stott, KL 3200).5 These healings are signs of hope, bringing people to faith (Wright, 154). But the important fact is that the cure was accomplished by the name of Jesus, and this led to many conversions among the local people when they saw the healed man (Marshall, 179). In accordance with the purpose of the signs, which was to authenticate and illustrate the salvation message of the apostle, people heard the word, saw the signs, and believed (Stott, KL 3221-3222).6 Joppa (modern Jaffa) lay some 12 miles (19 km) from Lydda on the coast (Marshall, 179, italics original).

bodies were placed in upper rooms (1 Kgs 17:19; 2 Kgs 4:10, 21). … In any case the Christians in Joppa felt sufficient faith in the possibility of resurrection to send for Peter and bid him come at once (Marshall, 179, italics original).

Once again, we have an almost detail-for-detail parallel with the raising of Jairus’ daughter.7

Mark 5 Acts 9Jesus begged to come (5:23) Peter begged to come (9:38)Jesus agrees to come immediately (5:24) Peter agrees to come immediately (9:39)Jairus’ daughter is dead (5:35) Tabitha is dead (9:37)There is a loud ruckus of mourners (5:38) There is a loud ruckus of mourners (9:39)Jesus sends everyone out of the house (5:40) Peter sends everyone out of the house (9:40)Jesus says, “Talitha koum” (5:41) Peter says, “Tabitha koum” (9:40)“Immediately the girl got up” (5:42) “She opened her eyes, saw Peter, and sat up. He gave

her his hand and helped her stand up” (9:40-41)

Luke makes the same point with Tabitha as Aeneas, although more indirectly this time. Both Aeneas and Dorcas are given the command “Get up.” This isn’t obvious in translation, but in Greek, this is the same word as “resurrected.” Peter is not healing either person in his own power or ability; he is acting in the resurrection power of the Spirit.8

As with Aeneas, many see Dorcas and believe in Jesus.9

Luke’s purpose in including these two stories out of all of Peter’s itinerant ministry is multifaceted. For one thing, he’s setting the stage for how and why Peter is in Joppa for the monumental event of Cornelius’ conversion.

But Luke has in both Acts and the Third Gospel demonstrated a heart for the little, forgotten guy. He’s given credit to Judas and Ananias for their roles in Saul’s life (we would certainly never know them otherwise). Here, he’s also pointing out the simple, unglamorous faith of Aeneas and Tabitha.

Neither of them were “celebrity” Christians. They weren’t pastors or missionaries (in the sense we think of, anyway). They weren’t doing big, flashy, “noticeable” things. But they still made a difference for the

7 First, both miracles followed the example of Jesus. Aeneas is reminiscent of that other paralytic, who lived in Capernaum. As Jesus had said to him, ‘Get up, take your mat and go home,’ so Peter said to Aeneas, ‘Get up and tidy up your mat’ (34). And the raising of Tabitha recalls the raising of Jairus’ daughter. Because the people were weeping noisily, Peter ‘sent them all out of the room’, just as Jesus had done. Further, the words spoken to the dead person were almost identical. Indeed, as several commentators have pointed out, if Peter spoke Aramaic on this occasion, only a single letter would have been different, for Jesus had said Talitha koum!, whereas Peter would have said Tabitha koum! (40) (Stott, KL 3201-3207, italics original).

He now proceeded to follow the example of Jesus in similar circumstances. He sent all the people out of the room (Mark 5:40; a detail omitted in Luke’s version of the story, Luke 8:54), and then prayed (2 Kgs 4:33). Then he called to the dead woman, Tabitha, arise. In Aramaic this phrase would be Tabitha cumi, which is only one letter different from Jesus’ command to Jairus’s daughter, Talitha cumi (Mark 5:41) (Marshall, 180, italics original).8 Peter knew that he could not overcome disease and death by his own authority or power. So he did not attempt to do so. Instead, to the paralysed, bedridden Aeneas he said, ‘Jesus Christ heals you’ (34), while before addressing the dead Tabitha ‘he got down on his knees and prayed’ (40), a detail which must have come from Peter, since nobody else was present (Stott, KL 3208-3211).

Because of his confidence in the power of Christ, Peter dared to address the diseased man and the dead woman with the same word of command: anastethi, ‘Get up!’ (34, 40). Yet anistemi is the verb used of God raising Jesus, which can hardly have been an accident. This is not to forget that Tabitha was ‘resuscitated’ to her old life (only to die again), whereas Jesus was ‘resurrected’ to a new life (never to die again). It is rather to point out that recovery from paralysis and resuscitation from death were both visible signs of that new life into which by the power of the resurrection we sinners are raised (Stott, KL 3211-3216).9 As with the healing of Aeneas, the news of the miracle became widely known and led to many conversions (Marshall, 180).

Kingdom. People cared enough about Aeneas to make sure Peter found him. Many people mourned Dorcas because she had made a genuine difference in their lives.

This is a helpful insert in the middle of the stories of two “giants” of Acts. Sure, Peter and Paul are important, and they are a key part of the story. But Peter and Paul and the apostles are only 13 men out of tens of thousands of believers. Luke puts these stories here to help us remember the value of the “little guys” and to emphasize their worth in the eyes of Jesus (who healed them) and the Church (who loved them).

[W]e have to assume that there were dozens in the early years, and thousands in later years, who, like her, lived their lives in faith and hope, bearing the sorrows of life no doubt as well as celebrating its joys, and finding in the small acts of service to others a fulfilment of the gospel within their own sphere, using traditional skills to the glory of God. Luke is right to draw our eyes down to the small-scale and immediate, in case we should ever forget that these are the people who form the heart of the church, while the apostles and evangelists go about making important decisions, getting locked up,stoned or shipwrecked, preaching great sermons, writing great letters, and generally being great and good all over the place. I am privileged to know plenty of Dorcases. The day before I wrote this I met one whose speciality is chocolate truffles. When I meet such people I greet them as what they are, the beating heart of the people of God (Wright, 154-155).

Peter follows Jesus to the lost (10:1-48).

With Peter in Joppa, Luke turns his attention to Caesarea and a God-fearing Roman centurion named Cornelius. This story spans all of chapter 10 and most of chapter 11, being recounted twice (once by Luke here, and then by Peter in chapter 11). Detailed repetitions point to the importance of the accounts; Paul’s conversion gets three tellings, and Jesus’ acceptance of the Gentiles as Gentiles into the Kingdom gets two.10 As a Gentile believer himself, this is personally significant for Luke. Overall, it’s importance is seen in that it explains the course of the rest of the book (and the rest of the history of the world up through 2017!).

The issue at stake with the inclusion of the Gentiles is not that Gentiles weren’t allowed to be saved before Acts 10 and now they are. Gentiles were saved throughout the Old Testament. For that matter, Abram was a pagan idol-worshipper in Ur of the Chaldees when God called him! The Old Testament is full of examples of Gentiles embracing Yahweh and His people: Caleb, Rahab, Ruth, Naaman are just a handful of the better-known ones.

But, for all of those Gentiles to be saved, they had to stop being Gentiles first. They had to reject and renounce their people, their gods, their culture, everything—and become new people, i.e., become Israelites. Ruth illustrates this in astonishing poetic beauty:

Don’t plead with me to abandon youor to return and not follow you.For wherever you go, I will go,and wherever you live, I will live;your people will be my people,and your God will be my God.Where you die, I will die,and there I will be buried.May the LORD punish me,and do so severely,if anything but death separates you and me (Ruth 1:16-17 CSB).

10 The sheer length of this story and the way in which it is in effect told twice over (see also the summary in 15:7–9) indicate the very great importance which Luke attaches to it in the context of Acts as a whole (Marshall, 181).

This is not simply wholehearted devotion to Naomi (although it is that). It is a summary rejection of all things Moabite and a total acceptance of all things Israelite. This was the way it worked.

He [i.e., Peter] knew that Jesus had spoken of a time when people would come from east and west (this, significantly, was following Jesus’ own meeting with a devout centurion, in Matthew 8) into God’s new world. But it seems that he, like the others, had assumed that non-Jews who wanted to share in the life of God’s new world, the messianic world that had been opened up through Jesus, would have to do what Gentiles had always had to do: to become proselytes, to take upon themselves Jewish identity, to renounce their own ethnic past and embrace Judaism lock, stock and barrel (Wright, 163).

Jesus had given hints and indications that things were changing in His ministry (declaring all foods clean, healing and ministering in the Gentile Decapolis, etc.), but the focus was still primarily Israel. All that to say, there was no indication in the minds of converted Jews that salvation worked differently now. Gentiles could certainly be saved, but the same way as always: they became Jews first.

The instance of the Ethiopian eunuch would have been seen as a gracious exception to the norm based on God’s kindness. As a eunuch, he could never become a Jew. He could never be ceremonially clean, and so he was graciously accepted by God but would not have caused the same consternation as Cornelius, his household, and the Gentile masses who could become Jews before becoming Christians. Would they have to? How would kosher-observing Jewish Christians interact with and be unified with non-kosher Gentile Christians?11

An angel prepares Cornelius to hear the gospel (10:1-8).

Cornelius was a common Roman name, given for Consul Cornelius Sulla whose tenure was in the early first century BC (overlapping the time and life of Julius Caesar). A Roman legion was made up of ten cohorts (“regiments” per the CSB); a cohort was made up of six centuries. Each century (100 men) was commanded by a centurion.12 Cornelius was then the equivalent of an NCO, a captain or company commander.13

Cornelius was part of the Italian Regiment (or Italian Cohort) stationed in Caesarea. This was a fairly prestigious post, given the strategic and political importance of maintaining peace and security in the Holy Land. Palestine is criss-crossed with major trade routes and connects three continents. A post at Caesarea speaks somewhat to Cornelius’ status as a Roman soldier.14

Surprisingly, Cornelius was a God-fearing man who led his whole family to be God-fearing as well. For whatever reasons, Cornelius had rejected the Roman pantheon and had embraced and worshiped Yahweh, doing “many charitable deeds for the Jewish people” and praying “always…to God” (10:2 CSB). Yet, for all this, neither Cornelius nor his household submitted to circumcision or became full Jewish proselytes.

So, although later (22) he is described as ‘respected by all the Jewish people’, he was still a Gentile, an outsider, excluded from God’s covenant with Israel. It is difficult for us to grasp the impassable gulf which yawned in those days between the Jews on the one hand and the Gentiles (including even the ‘God-fearers’) on the other (Stott, KL 3242-3244).

11 The obstacle to the mission to the Gentiles was that it would bring law-abiding Jews into contact with people who were reckoned unclean, and with their food which was also unclean (Marshall, 181).12 ‘Regiment’ translates speira, usually ‘cohort’, which consisted of six ‘centuries’ (100 men), each under the command of a ‘centurion’. Ten cohorts made up a legion. So a centurion corresponded approximately to a ‘captain’ or ‘company commander’ in our day (Stott, KL 3234-3236).13 A centurion corresponded to an NCO in modern army ranking (Marshall, 183).14 There were plenty of backwaters in the Roman Empire where a soldier who wasn’t really worth his salt could be sent, but Caesarea wasn’t one of them. It was a key port in a key strategic zone. Rome was desperate to keep the Middle East as peaceful as possible, because Rome depended utterly on the grain that was shipped, throughout the sailing season, from Egypt. Any centurion (a middle-ranking officer, with 100 men under him) posted to Caesarea must have been a good and trusted soldier (Wright, 158).

Jews in Palestine considered God-fearers as pagans; at least in the Dispersion they seemed to be a bit more welcomed.15 In either case, Cornelius is an outsider all around: he’s not fully in the covenant people of the God he fears, but he’s not welcomed (nor desired to be) by the traditional Roman worship, either.

The ninth hour was a traditional time of prayer for Jews (3:1), and Cornelius prayed then, too. An angel appeared to him and called him by name. As with every encounter with angelic beings, Cornelius was amazed and afraid and submitted himself to the angel’s message.16

Cornelius’ prayers and charitable activity had come before God “as a memorial offering”; God had not forgotten nor ignored Cornelius, but rather had heard his prayers. God would answer Cornelius, and His answer would be found through “Simon, who is also named Peter” who is staying with “Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea” (10:5-6 CSB). Cornelius and his household can find salvation, and in order to do so, they have to hear from a Jewish man (see 10:22).

Rather Cornelius is to send to Joppa for a man called Simon— here given his Jewish name. To follow this instruction would be an act of faith and obedience. Cornelius responded to the command by sending a group of three messengers, two servants and a military orderly who shared his faith and who would be able to explain the situation sympathetically to Peter. Since the distance was some 30 miles (48 km), it is probable that they rode, and Stählin (p. 151) suggests that they may have taken an animal for Peter (Marshall, 184-185).

Cornelius must hear the Gospel to be accepted by God, and God in His sovereign kindness leads him to that very Gospel.

Jesus prepares Peter to preach the gospel (10:9-16).

While the three men are en route from Caesarea to Joppa, Peter goes up on the roof of Simon’s house to pray. He asks for some food to be prepared (this was not a normal time for Jews to take a meal), and as he began to pray, he “fell into a trance” (10:10 CSB).17 In this trance, he has a vision of a large sheet lowered by its corners from heaven. The sheet contained unclean animals of all three Mosaic categories: four-footed animals, reptiles, and birds.18

A heavenly voice commands Peter to fix his meal from the animals on the sheet. Peter vehemently refuses, citing his lifelong observance of kosher purity. The voice responds to Peter, saying, “What God has made clean, do not call impure” (10:15 CSB). This happens three times, and the sheet ascended back into heaven.

Jesus had already “declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19), but it wasn’t understood then. What God is doing in this vision is declaring the fulfillment and completion—not the abolition—of the Mosaic kosher requirements. Neither food nor those eating it can defile you, but the sin that infects all humanity does. One and all need the same Savior, the same salvation, the same hope, the same forgiveness of sins, and the same Spirit.

15 More important than Cornelius’s military status for Luke is the fact that he and his household were worshippers of God… Nevertheless, Cornelius had not submitted to circumcision, as 11:3 makes clear. He was not a proselyte, i.e. a Gentile who had fully accepted the Jewish religion by undergoing circumcision, but merely a ‘God-fearer’ (cf. 13:16, 26, 43, 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7); such people were regarded as still pagans by the Jews in Palestine, but there appears to have been a more liberal attitude in the Dispersion (Marshall, 183-184).16 The angel addressed him by name (cf. Luke 1:13, 30; Acts 9:4), and Cornelius displayed the terror which is the natural reaction of human beings to the supernatural and is a constant feature in stories like the present one (Marshall, 184, italics original).17 The fact that Peter was praying means that he was in a condition to receive a divine message; Luke often emphasizes how God speaks to people when they are at prayer (e.g. 13:2; Luke 3:21f.; 9:29) (Marshall, 185).18 The contents of the sheet were animals that would be unclean and therefore unfit for eating in terms of the Jewish law found in Leviticus 11; whether there were any clean animals, i.e. those that chewed the cud and were cloven-hoofed, is not stated, but the implication is that there were none (Marshall, 185, italics original).

The original purpose of the cleanness laws and food requirements was to constantly reinforce the truth that sin inside of us makes us unclean. It was never the case that pigs in and of themselves were unclean. The point was to illustrate a spiritual truth by way of the physical senses. The goal was for each Israelite to throw his hands up and say with Isaiah, “Woe is me! I am undone, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips!” And Isaiah’s only salvation is the only salvation there has ever been: that the propitiation offered on the altar before a holy God is accepted by Him and applied to us.

The Old Testament consistently echoes with the invitation to the nations to worship God, but the mystery only revealed in Jesus was that those Gentiles could be welcomed into God’s people as Gentiles. The standard of righteousness and the unattainable nature of holiness God requires to accept anyone had to be established in Israel so that all may be accepted on the basis of faith and promise, not works and law.19

Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike, could fellowship at a meal together, and more importantly, celebrate The Meal together without rancor, defilement, or partiality.

It is more likely, therefore, that the point is that the Lord’s command frees Peter from any scruples about going to a Gentile home and eating whatever might be set before him. It would be a short step from recognizing that Gentile food was clean to realizing that Gentiles themselves were ‘clean’ also (Marshall, 186-187).

The food is the lesser (although still important) point here; the argument is from lesser to greater. If God declares food clean, then that food is clean. Period. If God then declares people clean—even Gentiles—then they’re clean. Period. We cannot be holier than God and add stipulations that He or others must meet before our requirements are met.

We can’t miss the fact that Peter—the apostle, the leader of the leaders of the Church—is still learning, still growing, still being sanctified by God. Peter hasn’t arrived yet, but Jesus hasn’t given up on Peter yet. We haven’t arrived yet, either, but Jesus hasn’t given up on us yet, either.

Peter preaches the gospel in Cornelius’ house and baptizes the believers (10:17-48).

God’s acts of providence are “His most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all His creatures and all their actions” (WSC 11). Reading history is one of the best tutors in the doctrine of providence: so many things happen in the world at just the right time, in just the right way, by just the right people in just the right places.

Acts 10 is a marvelous example of this as well. God has sent an angel to Cornelius, and his three emissaries are en route to Joppa, about 30 miles away. It’s a day-and-a-half journey which they complete the next day (10:9, 17). While they’re on the way, Peter goes up to pray at the sixth hour (noon), and he has a vision also. As soon as the vision finishes, while Peter’s still figuring out what it means, the three emissaries knock at the gate. At that very moment.20

We note how perfectly God dovetailed his working in Cornelius and in Peter. For while Peter was praying and seeing his vision, the men from Cornelius were approaching the city (9–16); while Peter was perplexed about the meaning of what he had seen, they arrived at his house (17–18); while Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit told him that the men were looking for him and he must

19 [T]he taboos of food and family had been set up by God in the first place to do a proper and important job of keeping Israel for himself, separate from the rest of the world, against the day when he would finally act to do through Israel what he had always planned. Now, in Jesus and by the spirit, God had carried out that plan. The time had therefore come when all alike, Gentile as well as Jew, could be welcomed into God’s family on exactly the same terms (Wright, 165).20 The arrival of the men at this point is clearly meant to be understood as providential (Marshall, 187).

not hesitate to go with them (19–20); and when Peter went down and introduced himself to them, they explained to him the purpose of their visit (21–23) (Stott, KL 3298-3302).

At this point, the Spirit tells Peter that three men are at the gate for him, and he should go with them “with no doubts at all” or “making no distinction.”21 He should do this because “I have sent them”; notice how “the Spirit speaks on behalf of God as ‘I’” (Marshall, 187).

Peter obeys, and asks the men why they’ve come. They give a more detailed account of the task Cornelius assigned them, indicating Cornelius’ reputation among the Jewish community and the divine origins of his request for Peter’s coming (“divinely directed by a holy angel”). Peter is to come with them to give them “a message.”

Peter had already begun to learn the lesson of the vision by inviting them in to stay the night before returning to Caesarea the next day. Cornelius, meanwhile, had gathered his family and close friends to wait for Peter’s arrival. When Peter did arrive, Cornelius fell at his feet to worship him, which Peter immediately refused.22

Cornelius’ act of worshiping Peter is certainly understandable. Perhaps he thought the reason the angel had commanded him to get Peter was because Peter himself the Messiah, instead of merely an apostle of the Messiah. In any case, Peter’s sermon to them clarifies that he is an eyewitness, but not the Christ.

At this point, Peter sees the large crowd—of Gentiles—gathered in the house, and his contemplations about the meaning of the vision are cemented at this point. Peter states the obvious: “You know it’s forbidden for a Jewish man to associate with or visit a foreigner”; this very encounter is not normal or normally acceptable. But it should be: “but God has shown me that I must not call any person impure or unclean” (10:28 CSB).

In fact, the word describes what is taboo’. But now Peter felt at liberty to break this traditional taboo and to enter Cornelius’ house, because God had shows him that no human being was unclean in his sight. Whether consciously or unconsciously, Peter had just now repudiated both extreme and opposite attitudes which human beings have sometimes adopted towards one another. He had come to see that it was entirely inappropriate either to worship somebody as if divine (which Cornelius had tried to do to him) or to reject somebody as if unclean (which he would previously have done to Cornelius). Peter refused both to be treated by Cornelius as if he were a god, and to treat Cornelius as if he were a dog (Stott, KL 3314-3319).

Peter then asks them why they sent for him, and Cornelius explains the angel’s appearance and instructions to him. Cornelius specifically includes the detail that the angel directed him “to hear everything you have been commanded by the Lord” (10:33 CSB).

As several commentators point out, it’s hard for a preacher to ask for a better situation: a crowd prepared and eagerly waiting to hear whatever sermon you’ve got locked and loaded.23

Peter begins his sermon by admitting that God is still teaching and molding him (again, what a comfort!): “Now I truly understand that God doesn’t show favoritism” (10:34 CSB). Now, I get it, Peter says. The distinction

21 The key expression meden diakrinomenos in 10:20 and meden diakrinanta in 11:12 is usually translated ‘without hesitation’ (RSV) or ‘without misgiving’ (JBP, NEB), but it could mean ‘making no distinction’ (11:12, RSV), that is, ‘making no gratuitous, invidious distinction between Jew and Gentile’. Thus, although the vision challenged the basic distinction between clean and unclean foods, which Peter had been brought up to make, the Spirit related this to the distinction between clean and unclean people, and told him to stop making it. That Peter grasped this is clear from his later statement: ‘God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean’ (28) (Stott, KL 3287-3294).22 If Cornelius’ act of falling down before Peter was unbecoming, so too according to Jewish tradition was Peter’s act of entering a Gentile home (Stott, KL 3310-3311).23 Peter could have had no better-prepared and eager an audience than this, and was quick to seize on the situation as the starting-point for his address (Marshall, 189). It was a remarkable acknowledgement that they were in God’s presence, that the apostle Peter was to be the bearer of God’s word to them, and that they were all ready and open to listen to it. No preacher today could ask for a more attentive audience (Stott, KL 3324-3326).

between ethnicities is not a big deal, but rather the distinction between the one “who fears him and does what is right and acceptable to him” (10:35 CSB) and the one who doesn’t.

Peter doesn’t explicitly explain what he means by this until 10:43, but his answer is (again) completely consonant with Jesus’ own. When asked, “What can we do to perform the works of God?” Jesus answered, “This is the work of God—that you believe in the one he has sent” (John 6:28-29 CSB).

We have to remember that Luke picks up Cornelius’ story in the middle. The Holy Spirit has already done a lot of spade-work in Cornelius’ heart (and in the hearts of those in his household). Cornelius has rejected the Roman pantheon in favor of Yahweh, Israel’s God, but he is still on the outside looking in. He is outwardly righteous, but he has not been born again. He must “perform the works of God” by believing in the Jesus he’s heard of as the Messiah who forgives his sins.

This does not mean that salvation is possible apart from the atonement wrought by Jesus Christ, but rather that on the basis of his death and resurrection the gospel is offered to all people who are willing to receive it and recognize their need of it; had a person like Cornelius said, ‘My good deeds are sufficient to win me favour with God, and I have no need of the gospel’ (which is essentially what the Pharisee said in Luke 18:11), then it would have become clear that he was not accepted by God; a good life is acceptable in God’s sight only when it leads to recognition of its own inadequacy and to acceptance of the gospel (or when it would have done so, had opportunity of hearing the gospel been provided). Cornelius, however, wanted to hear the gospel (Marshall, 189-190).

The emphasis in Peter’s comment is on “from every nation”; fearing God and doing what is right by trusting in the Messiah for forgiveness of sins is not an exclusively Jewish privilege.24

If what Peter had discovered was that God simply accepts everyone the way they are, what was the fuss for Cornelius to be devout and god-fearing?... The reason Cornelius was a devout worshipper of Israel’s God was precisely that he was fed up with the normal Roman gods and eager to follow what seemed to him the real one. It is not the case, then, that God simply ‘accepts us as we are’. He invites us as we are; but responding to that invitation always involves the complete transformation which is acted out in repentance, forgiveness, baptism, and receiving the spirit. No: what is at stake here is not the eighteenth-century principle of ‘tolerance’, but the glorious first-century truth that, in Jesus the Messiah of Israel, God has broken down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles, humiliating both categories (Jews, because they apparently lose their privileged position; Gentiles, because they have to acknowledge the Jewish Messiah) in order to reveal God’s mercy to both (Wright, 164).

We see in this sermon—as with almost every sermon—the insistence on the historical nature of redemption. The God that Cornelius feared had spoken to and worked through the Israelites in the past, and now has kept all of those promises and plans in Jesus of Nazareth. The good news of peace to Israel was not merely for Israel, however, since Yahweh is “Lord of all” (10:36 CSB).25

24 He means that God’s attitude to people is not determined by any external criteria, such as their appearance, race, nationality or class. Instead, and positively, God accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right (35). Better, and more literally, ‘in every nation whoever fears God and works righteousness is acceptable (dektos) to him’ … The emphasis is that Cornelius’ Gentile nationality was acceptable so that he had no need to become a Jew, not that his own righteousness was adequate so that he had no need to become a Christian. For God is ‘not indifferent of religions but indifferent of nations’. As Lenski asks: ‘If his honest pagan convictions had been sufficient, why did he seek the synagogue? If the synagogue had been enough, why was Peter here?’ Peter will soon teach him the necessity of faith for salvation (43) (Stott, KL 3331-3340, italics original).25 The message thus begins by asserting that in Jesus God has fulfilled his promise in the Old Testament to bring peace to his people, the children of Israel; peace is used here in its full sense as a synonym for ‘salvation’ (Luke 1:79; 2:14; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:17; 6:15), and denotes not merely the absence of strife and enmity between man and God but also the positive blessings that develop in a state of reconciliation. But this message is not confined to the Jews. Although it was sent to Israel, it was intended for all mankind, since, as Peter adds in an emphatic parenthesis, Jesus, the author of peace, is the Lord of all men (Marshall, 191, italics original).

Peter then attests to his authority as an apostle: he is one of many eyewitnesses of all that Jesus said and did. Despite Jesus’ clear anointing with the Holy Spirit (what it means to be “Christ”), despite the power of God wielded to liberate those “under the tyranny of the devil” (10:38 CSB), Jesus was murdered by being hung on a tree.

The language of being hung on a tree is a deliberate reference to the accursed nature of such a death; to die this way was to die accursed. Peter is making clear that Jesus died as a propitiation for sins, bearing the curse of sin on Himself.

God vindicated Jesus by raising Him from the dead, and the eyewitnesses testify not only to His life and death but the certainty of His bodily resurrection as well. These eyewitnesses were “appointed” by God—remember Matthias was chosen by lots so that every apostle was appointed by Jesus, not men—and have the certainty of sharing a meal as part of their testimony.26 This same resurrected Jesus commanded them to preach Jesus as the judge of all the earth and the only one in whom there is forgiveness of sins by faith.

In other words, Peter is saying: ‘Cornelius: the God whom you have worshipped from afar has done all this, as part of his global plan to set everything right at last; and, at every stage, Jesus is in the middle of it all! God has thus fulfilled the purposes for which he called Israel in the first place; and you, Cornelius, and everyone everywhere who believes this message, will receive a welcome at once, without more ado, into the family whose home has, written in shining letters above the door, the wonderful word “forgiven” ’ (Wright, 169-170).

Peter’s sermon is interrupted by the Holy Spirit, who makes Cornelius and his household be born again as they hear the Gospel preached. Cornelius and all those who received the Spirit spoke in tongues and “declar[ed] the greatness of God,” (10:46 CSB) just like the 120 did at Pentecost (“we hear them declaring the magnificent acts of God in our own tongues,” 2:11 CSB).27 The Jewish believers who came with Peter are amazed at this clear display of salvation worked by the Holy Spirit.

Peter responds to their reception of the Holy Spirit with the Ethiopian’s question to Philip: “Can anyone withhold water and prevent these people from being baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (10:47 CSB).28

I love the way John Stott describes this:

Since God had accepted these Gentile believers, which indeed he had (15:8), the church must accept them too… How could the sign be denied to those who had already received the reality signified?... By giving the Spirit to Cornelius and his household before their baptism, God gave Peter an apologia megale (a mighty reason or justification) for giving them water-baptism. Yet in a sense their baptism

It was a marvellously comprehensive message, a précis of the good news according to Peter which Mark would later record more fully in his gospel, and which Luke incorporated in his. Focusing on Jesus, Peter presented him as a historical person, in and through whom God was savingly at work, who now offered to believers salvation and escape from judgment. Thus history, theology and gospel were again combined, as in other apostolic sermons. As Cornelius, his family, relatives, friends and servants listened, their hearts were opened to grasp and believe Peter’s message, and so to repent and believe in Jesus (Stott, KL 3374-3378).26 The resurrection appearances were not made to the people at large. The reason appears to have been that those who saw Jesus were constituted to act as witnesses to the many people who could not see him, and this obligation was not laid on people who were unfit for it but only on those who had been prepared by lengthy association with Jesus and by sharing his work of mission. The reality of their experience of him is stressed by the note that they ate and drank with him (1:4; Luke 24:30, 43) (Marshall, 193, italics original).27 But they could not deny the evidence of their eyes and ears, for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God (46), as had happened on the Day of Pentecost. It was ‘a type of the reconciliation between Jew and Gentile, whose alienation had for ages been secured and symbolized by differences of language’ (Stott, KL 3382-3385).28 Here the purpose [of speaking in tongues] is clear: Peter and those with him (circumcised, that is, Jewish, men) need to know that these uncircumcised people have been regarded by the holy spirit as fit vessels to be filled with his presence and voice. And if that is so, there can be no barriers to baptism (Wright, 170).

‘was completed already’, for God had done it. Peter was clear that ‘in no one point was he the author, but in every point God’. It was as if Peter said: ‘God baptized them, not I’ (Stott, 3386-3392).

The baptism of the household teaches (or perhaps, reinforces) several important lessons already taught in Acts.First of all, we see the inseparable connection of repentance-faith-baptism on the human side, and forgiveness of sins and receiving the Spirit on the divine side. Because the Spirit wrought repentance and faith in them, they were forgiven and indwelt by the Spirit. Any one of the five (repentance-faith-baptism-forgiveness-indwelling) are to always be inseparably connected to the others.

Related to this, we see Luke’s insistence that those who “heard the message” received the Spirit, spoke in tongues, and were therefore baptized. The presence of infants or children in the household (which Luke doesn’t indicate either way) is beside the point. The text is clear that those who were baptized were those who were speaking in tongues because they had received the Spirit because they were forgiven for their sins because they heard the preaching of the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Second, we see that baptism isn’t a necessary prerequisite for receiving the Spirit or forgiveness of sins. Peter’s point, as John Stott so wonderfully put it, is that God had already baptized them Himself with the Spirit—why not baptize them with water? They’ve clearly already received the thing baptism points to, so who’s going to say they can’t have the sign itself?

Third, we see the importance of baptism in the lives of all believers. Peter cannot imagine a reason not to baptize them, and he defies anyone to say otherwise. They clearly have the Spirit, they clearly believe the Gospel, they are clearly forgiven of sins, and yet Peter insists on their baptism.

Fourth, I believe we see the true atmosphere of a baptism: celebration. These saints were baptized as a response of joy to the work of sovereign grace.

Since elsewhere the gift of the Spirit comes to people who repent and believe (cf. 11:17f.), the implication is twofold: first, that the Gentiles present responded to the message with faith; and, secondly, that God accepted them and sealed their faith with the gift of the Spirit. Once Gentiles had been given an opportunity to hear the message, they responded, and God received them ... It was one thing to make an attempt to preach to Gentiles; it was quite another to see the sermon interrupted by the clear signs of their conversion and reception of God’s gift. There could be no mistake about what had happened. Just as the first Jewish believers had received the Spirit and praised God in other tongues on the day of Pentecost, so now these Gentiles received the identical gift of God (Marshall, 193-194).

Now, all four concentric circles of the Gospel mission have been reached. Gentiles, the ends of the earth, have been welcomed into the Kingdom29 as Gentiles.30 Peter’s acceptance of their invitation to stay a few days demonstrated the newfound unity between Jew and Gentile.31

It means that there are no ethnic, geographical, cultural or moral barriers any longer in the way of anyone and everyone being offered forgiveness and new life. That is a message far more powerful than

29 This is, though, a moment we have been waiting for since the first two chapters. Jesus told his followers that they would be his witnesses in Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth, and the holy spirit had fallen on the believers in Jerusalem (Acts 2) and in Samaria (Acts 8). Now at last, the spirit comes on Gentiles as well. Granted, Caesarea is hardly ‘the ends of the earth’, but the message has now reached out to embrace not only Gentiles but Romans. From here, it may be a long step geographically but it’s only a short step culturally to everywhere else in the then known world, from Britain and Spain in the west to Parthia, India and Egypt in the east (Wright, 167).30 But clearly the major concern, which if allowed to stand would blow a hole right through the worldview of the ‘circumcision group’, was that these Gentiles had been admitted as full members of the new and rapidly developing Jesus-family without having had to become Jews in the process (Wright, 173, italics original).31 And Peter’s acceptance of their hospitality demonstrated the new Jewish-Gentile solidarity which Christ had established (Stott, KL 3395-3396).

the easy-going laissez-faire tolerance which contemporary Western society so easily embraces. Cornelius didn’t want God (or Peter) to tolerate him. He wanted to be welcomed, forgiven, healed, transformed. And he was (Wright, 170).

Peter leads the Church to follow Jesus’ joy in saved sinners (11:1-18).

While Peter remained in Caesarea for a while, word got back to the apostles and saints in Jerusalem “that the Gentiles had also received the word of God” (11:1 CSB). Upon Peter’s return, he was criticized for his part in what they believed to be a major error on his part.

As we have seen through chapter 10, the issue was never a refusal to admit Gentiles into the Kingdom; it was a refusal to admit them into the Kingdom without becoming Jews first.32 The criticism of Peter is specifically tied to Jewish cleanness: “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them” (11:3 CSB).33

It’s not necessary to interpret “circumcision party” as a faction within the church at this point (although this may be a hint at its inception); it could just refer to those in the Church who were circumcised. In either case, there was a major barrier to including the Gentiles in the Church that had come down, and these Jewish Christians needed to know that it was truly of God’s doing.

We also see that word reached the apostles. As Stott points out, the apostles have verified and endorsed the major gospel moves in Acts, as we see them sending Peter and John as delegates to verify Philip’s ministry among the Samaritans. Here, they are equally concerned to verify the move of God among the Gentiles. They’re not being micromanagers here; they’re performing their function as guardians of the deposit that Jesus entrusted to them.34

We can too easily gloss over the Jew-Gentile barrier as foreign to our experience. But it is a valid question to ask from this text: am I eager to hear and accept the work of God among people not like me?

Are we willing to accept people not like us in our church? Are we willing and eager to rejoice at the ministry success of another church? Even a church of another denomination? Are we willing and eager to support and rejoice with a church that we disagree with?

John Wesley made it a regular practice in a church he pastored to set aside a prayer service to pray for and rejoice with other churches in the area. He would solicit prayer requests and blessings from other churches and pray for those in his own church. And he wouldn’t just talk to Anglican or even Methodist sympathizers; he contacted a broad spectrum of churches.

What Peter is correcting here is important for us to be on guard for and correct in ourselves. There’s more going on than just a one-time historical event (although it certainly is that). He’s also correcting the innate sinful tendency to close the doors of the Kingdom to those who aren’t like us or those that we don’t approve of.

32 But clearly the major concern, which if allowed to stand would blow a hole right through the worldview of the ‘circumcision group’, was that these Gentiles had been admitted as full members of the new and rapidly developing Jesus-family without having had to become Jews in the process (Wright, 173, italics original).33 It may also be noted that the narrative does not imply that Cornelius or his friends were circumcised; indeed it positively rules it out (cf. 11:3). Finally, the new fellowship in the church between Jews and Gentiles was cemented during a brief stay by Peter with Cornelius. At the same time, this interval allowed news of what had happened to reach Jerusalem before Peter himself arrived back (Marshall, 195). When he returned to Jerusalem, he found himself called to account for his action in eating with Gentiles (not, curiously, for baptizing them), and had to defend his action by telling the story of the unmistakable leading of God which culminated in his baptizing of the Gentiles on whom the Spirit had fallen. This not only silenced his critics but led to a recognition by the church that salvation was available for the Gentiles (Marshall, 181).34 It is understandable that, just as the apostles needed to endorse the evangelization of the Samaritans who ‘had accepted the word of God’ (8:14), so now they were concerned about the conversion and baptism of the first Gentiles, who had similarly received it (1) (Stott, KL 3398-3400).

Jesus’ rebuke of Peter stands to rebuke us as well: “What God has made clean, do not call impure.”

So Peter explains the whole event from his perspective. Peter doesn’t assume that they’ve heard the whole story or that they’ve heard it all accurately. He establishes the authoritative account of what happened by repeating a condensed version of chapter 10. Here, Luke uses Peter’s account to add details not explicitly stated earlier.35

Here again we see an important principle at play: judgment should be rendered on an accurate, full account of the evidence, not based on rumors, half-truths, or assumptions of what happened (particularly if there’s a predisposition to hostility or opposition).

The phrase “step by step” or “in order” is similar in principle to Luke’s purpose in writing Luke-Acts: “It also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in an orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed” (Luke 1:3 CSB). Peter is doing for this event what Luke is doing for the life and ministry of Jesus in both volumes.

Peter recounts the vision of the sheet and the heavenly voice speaking to him. He then told them of the perfect timing of Cornelius’ emissaries at the gate: Peter specifies that they arrived “at that very moment” (11:11 CSB).36

Peter’s order of events is important because it helps us to live through his experience with him, and so to learn just how God had shown him that he should not call anybody impure or unclean (10:28). It took four successive hammer-blows of divine revelation before his racial and religious prejudice was overcome, as he explains to the Jerusalem church (Stott, KL 3413-3415).

Here, we also see an additional detail not in chapter 10: the message Cornelius was to hear from Peter was one by which he and all his household would be saved. The angel made it crystal clear to him that Peter had the message of life that he and his household needed to be right with the God he sought to follow.37

Peter then told them how the Holy Spirit interrupted his preaching with the new birth of Cornelius and his household. He adds the detail of his interpretation of the event, and what he clearly expected them to agree with.

Peter says that the Holy Spirit “came down on them, just as on us at the beginning” (11:15 CSB).38 Luke doesn’t specify, but I wonder if “us” doesn’t include the objectors themselves. Obviously, “us” includes the Twelve, but I wonder if the force of the statement doesn’t include Peter’s interlocutors.

Peter clearly states that what happened at Pentecost to Jews has happened to Gentiles in the same way. There is to be no distinction between the two groups, because the same Spirit of the same Savior was poured out on them all. As Marshall notes,

Peter’s comment brings out the fact that the experience of the Gentile converts was the same as that of the original recipients of the Spirit at the beginning, i.e. on the day of Pentecost. It is significant that he compares the experience of the Gentiles with that of the group in the upper room, rather than with that of the first converts from Judaism: there is nothing that might suggest a status as ‘second-class citizens’ for the Gentiles (Marshall, 197, italics original).

35 Peter’s reaction to the question was to tell the audience the whole story in order (for this last phrase cf. Luke 1:3), in the belief that when they heard it properly (instead of the fragmentary and possibly garbled reports that they had already received) they would be bound to see that God had led him to this action (Marshall, 196)36 As Peter retold to the Jerusalem church the story of the two visions, he must have been freshly impressed by the chronology (Stott, KL 3434-3435).37 It is only here, however, that we learn that the angelic message promised to Cornelius that he would hear a message explaining how he could be saved, along with his household (verse 14) (Marshall, 197).38 It was the extraordinary similarity of the two events which struck him. He remembered what the risen Jesus had said after his resurrection (1:5), namely John baptised with water, but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit. In other words, this was the Gentile Pentecost in Caesarea, corresponding to the Jewish Pentecost in Jerusalem (Stott, KL 3444-3446, italics original).

Peter then “remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit’” (11:16 CSB).39 Since the Gentiles had been baptized with the Spirit, who would forbid them from being baptized with water?40

The culmination of Peter’s defense is his second rhetorical question of the event: “If, then, God gave them the same gift that he also gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, how could I possibly hinder God?” (11:17 CSB).

I like how Peter has turned the tables on his interlocutors. Chapter 11 began with Peter being put on the defensive, but here he puts them on the defensive. He rightfully and truthfully puts the question right back at them, “Do you want to be fighting against God?”

Here, Gamaliel’s advice to the Sanhedrin is offered to these Christians: make sure when you fight that you’re not fighting against God. Peter says, I’m dumb, but I’m not dumb enough to do that.”41

Thankfully, the Holy Spirit worked in these saints just as He has been working in everyone else in this event. Their response is nothing short of a miracle: “they glorified God” (11:18 CSB).42

I love the way F.F. Bruce describes their reaction: “their criticism ceased; their worship began” (Stott, KL 3459-3461).

Again, may our criticisms give way to rejoicing and glorifying God for His work, even in those we don’t expect or agree with or find too much like us.

Luke has now recounted the conversions of Saul and Cornelius. The differences between these two men were considerable. In race Saul was a Jew, Cornelius a Gentile; in culture Saul was a scholar, Cornelius a soldier; in religion Saul was a bigot, Cornelius a seeker. Yet both were converted by the gracious initiative of God; both received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit; and both were the baptized and welcomed into the Christian family on equal terms. This fact is a signal testimony to the power and impartiality of the gospel of Christ, which is still ‘the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes; first for the Jew, then for the Gentile’ (Stott, KL 3515-3519).

39 the reception of the Spirit by the Gentiles was to be regarded as being baptized with the Spirit (on the meaning of this term see 1:5 note), since it was the same kind of experience as that of Pentecost, which was the first fulfilment of Jesus’ prophecy. Secondly, if the Gentiles had been baptized with the Spirit, then they should a fortiori be eligible to be baptized with water (Marshall, 197).40 The church, which carried out baptism with water, was thus under compulsion to baptize believing Gentiles; otherwise, it would have been hindering God from carrying out his will. It emerges incidentally from this statement that Peter assumes that the Spirit is given to those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; baptism with water is bestowed in response to the confession of faith, and, although the bestowal of the Spirit was the evidence that faith was present, it is probable that the baptism of the Gentiles included their confession of faith (Marshall, 198).41 Peter was convinced. He at once drew the correct deduction from the fact that God had given the same gift of the Spirit to Gentiles as to Jews. He asked two rhetorical questions. The first was at the time: ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have’ (10:47). The second he addressed to his critics in Jerusalem: ‘If God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who was I to think that I could oppose God?’ (11:17). Both questions were unanswerable. And they were the more striking because both contain an almost identical Greek expression, namely dynatai kolysai (10:47) and dynatos kolysai (11:17), literally ‘able to forbid, refuse or prevent’. Water-baptism could not be forbidden to these Gentile converts, because God could not be forbidden to do what he had done, namely give them Spirit-baptism. The argument was irrefutable. Peter had been ‘confronted with a divine fait accompli’. To be sure, to give Christian baptism to an uncircumcised Gentile was a bold, innovative step, but to withhold it would be to ‘stand in God’s way’ (NEB) (Stott, KL 3448-3458).42 Peter’s argument proved convincing. Not only was incipient criticism reduced to silence, but rather the audience expressed their praise to God that he had granted to the Gentiles as well as the Jews the opportunity of repenting of their sins and thus of obtaining eternal life (5:20; 13:46, 48). This opportunity was provided in the preaching of the gospel. Peter’s argument implicitly claimed that Gentiles were full members of the church, and therefore that circumcision and keeping of the law were unnecessary for salvation; it also contained the wider implication that the Jewish distinction between clean and unclean foods and people was obsolete (Marshall, 198, italics original).