Acts 11

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 11 PETER HIS TO Act_11:1-18 1 Now the apostles and the brethren—The distance from Caesarea, the home of Cornelius, to Jerusalem was about seventy miles. We do not know how long after the conversion of Cornelius and his household until the news reached Jerusalem; Cornelius had invited Peter and the other brethren to “ tarry certain days” with him, and the implication is that they did so. The news of the conversion of Cornelius, and especially the news of Peter’ s going into the house of a Gentile, was startling to Jewish Christians; they had, as yet, not learned that the gospel was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews; neither had they heard of the vision that Peter had and the command to go to the Gentiles. It seems that the news came to Jerusalem and the other Judean churches before Peter had left Caesarea. 2-3 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem,—Peter was accompanied by the six Jewish brethren who had gone with him from Joppa to Caesarea, and now came with him to Jerusalem. We may now see the purpose Peter had in taking these six Jewish brethren with him to Caesarea; they were to be witnesses with him, and it seems that Peter had gone to Jerusalem to defend himself and to impart to the church there the news of the reception of the Gentiles. “ They that were of the circumcision,” or the Jewish Christians, “ contended” with Peter, and brought the accusation against him that he went “ in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” “ Contended” is from the Greek “ diekrinonto,” and here means “ to separate oneself apart, to take sides against, to make a cleavage.” So Peter is at once put on the defense; it is clear here that Peter was not regarded as any kind of “ pope” or overlord. The Jewish Christians must have contended that the distinction between Jew and Gentile should be maintained in the church; hence, they should not mix socially with Gentiles, the un-circumcised, nor eat with them. “ Uncircumcised” means men having not been circumcised; it is used here as a contemptuous expression; they did not object to Peter’ s preaching to the Gentiles, but they did object to his going into the house and eating with them. 4-6 But Peter began, and expounded the matter—When Peter came before the other “ apostles” and “ brethren,” he explained in a very deliberate and detailed way that he had been convinced that God wanted the gospel preached to the Gentiles. He gave the facts that convinced him, thinking that the arguments that convinced him would convince others that the Gentiles should have the blessings of the gospel. A great work had been done in the name of Christ and Peter is called on to defend himself for his part in it. Peter’ s mildness and patience in explaining the entire matter to them was put in contrast with the heat and excitement that his accusers manifested. Peter’ s rehearsal was so simple and truthful that it carried conviction. He told exactly where he was, what he was doing, and all things connected with his trance. 7-10 And I heard also a voice saying unto me,—There was a clear issue between Peter with respect to his conduct and the other apostles and brethren; the charge was: “ Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” (Verse 3.) This issue involved the one of bringing Gentiles into the church without their becoming Jews. Luke, the writer, through the Holy Spirit, deemed it wise to give the two records of this set of events— the one in chapter 10 and the other here. This shows that great im¬portance and significance was attached to the event. God himself, the God of the Jews, had directed Peter to do what he had done. (Verses 5-10.) God had convinced Peter with a vivid illustration while Peter was in a trance. (Verse 6.) God had directed Cornelius to send for Peter; to confirm the fact, an angel was sent to Cornelius bidding him send for Peter. These Gentiles had become Christians without becoming Jews; the Holy Spirit had come upon them as he had upon the Jews on Pentecost. While Jesus was on earth teaching the Jews had asked him for “ a sign from heaven,” and now Peter gives these disciples a sign from heaven. (Matthew 16:1; Luke 11:16.) 11-14 And behold, forthwith three men stood—Peter rehearsed the matter in the detailed order that the events occurred, so that his report of them might impress the minds of his hearers, as the events themselves did to his own mind. Peter’ s vision had scarcely ended when these three men from Caesarea called for him. “ Forthwith three men stood before the house in which we were.” Further evidence was that the Holy Spirit commanded Peter to go with them, “ making no distinction.” That is, Peter should go to the Gentiles with the gospel as freely as he would to the Jews; “ these six brethren” accompanied Peter and were now present to bear witness that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit and to testify just what Peter had done. So Peter confessed to the charge that was brought against him, and the other six were guilty of the same charge. Peter has made it clear that he did not go to the Gentiles and eat with them of his own initiative; he went under the direct orders of God and the Holy Spirit; these six Jewish brethren could bear witness to this fact. 15 And as I began to speak,—Cornelius had been told by the angel that Peter, when brought from Joppa, would “ speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house.” (Verse 14.) Now Peter began to speak these words unto this good, yet unsaved, man; he had not been speaking very long (Acts 10:34-44) when the Holy Spirit came upon the company assembled at Cornelius’ house as he had “ on us at the beginning.” The “ beginning” mentioned here was Pentecost. Peter recalls very vividly the events at Pentecost; this was the beginning of the church; it was the beginning of the preaching of the gospel in its fullness; it was the beginning of the work of the apostles under the Great Commission; it was the beginning of the Christian dispensation. The Holy Spirit came upon these Gentiles as it did upon the Jews “ at the beginning.” According to the best chronologists, Pentecost occurred A.D. 30 to 33, and the conversion of Cornelius took place about A.D. 40; hence, it has been eight or ten years since Pentecost; the church was eight or ten years old at the conversion of Cornelius. The coming of the Holy Spirit upon the household of Cornelius was a baptism of the Holy Spirit. There had been nothing like this since Pentecost; hence, Peter says that the Holy Spirit came on the house of Cornelius as it did on the Jews “ at the beginning.” Therefore, there had been no baptism of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost; if there had been Peter could have referred to the numerous other incidents and not have had to go back to Pentecost. This also shows that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was not to convert people, for Peter would only have had to refer to any case of conversion to prove his point. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord,—When the Holy Spirit came on the Gentiles, Peter remembered how Jesus had said: “ John indeed baptized with water; but ye, shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:5.) The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a mark of the divine acceptance of Gentiles as disciples. If God had conferred on the Gentiles the baptism of the Holy Spirit, how can man refuse to them all the blessings of the gospel ? How can Christian Jews call men common and unclean upon whom God has bestowed the baptism of the Holy Spirit ? 17 If then God gave unto them the like gift—Here Peter reached the climax of his argument; he and other Jewish Christians could not refuse those whom God had accepted; he could not withstand God. The argument is clear and forceful. To reject the Gentiles and refuse to let them enjoy all the blessings of the gospel would be to “ withstand God.” If God gave to them the same gift which he gave to the Jews on believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, Peter could not reject the Gentiles. The argument forces the other apostles and brethren to withdraw their charge against Peter, or commend him for what he had done, and rejoice with him in the conversion of the Gentiles. 18 And when they heard these things,—The accusation against Peter was withdrawn; the wrangling ceased; the critics even “ glorified God.” They rejoiced that God had “ granted repentance unto life” to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. Peter now sees in this incident the same principle for which Paul con¬tended at a later date. (Acts 15:8.) The Jews were now satisfied that God had called Gentiles as well as Jews; it is clear here that the Jews could not live as Jews and be Christians, and that the Gentiles could not live as Gentiles and be Christians; that “ there can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28.)

CHURCH IN ANTIOCH FOUNDED Acts 11:19-21 19 They therefore that were scattered abroad—Luke, the historian, here picks up the thread of events where he left it in Acts 8:1. All the thousands of disciples that had been converted at Jerusalem were scattered abroad except the apostles; the persecution of the church began with the martyrdom of Stephen, and some of those who were scattered abroad went “ as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch.” These, however, preached the gospel “ to none save only to Jews.” The persecution which followed the death of Stephen had a twofold effect: (1) the dispersed disciples preached Christ and established churches within Palestine; (2) churches were established beyond Palestine, “ Phoenicia” was a district, about a hundred twenty miles long and fifteen miles broad, which lay to the north of Palestine on the shores of the Mediterranean, and on the slopes of Lebanon; its chief cities were Tyre, Sidon, and Tripolis; it formed a part of the Roman province of Syria. The gospel was preached and churches were established in Phoenicia. (Acts 21:1-4 Acts 27:3.) “ Cyprus” was a large and fertile island nearly opposite Antioch, while Antioch was the capital of the Roman province of Syria; it was situated on the Orontes River, about sixteen miles from the sea, with Seleucia for its seaport. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene,—Here we have a contrast with those who preached the gospel “ to none save only to Jews,” as there were “ some of them” who were scattered abroad, “ who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also.” The best authorities consider “ the Greeks” here as meaning the Gentiles; however, some authorities understand it to mean “ Grecian Jews.” (Acts 6:1.) These men from “ Cyprus and Cyrene” were “ Hellenists,” Greek-speaking Jews, who, having lived abroad, had learned to speak the Grecian language; however, they spoke “ unto the Greeks.” “ Hellenists” is used to mean those Jews who had been abroad and spoke the Grecian language; but “ Hellenes” means the Gentiles who did not become Jewish proselytes. Hence, the contrast and the new departure lie in the fact that before this the disciples sought to convert to Jesus only the Jews, including the Grecians who were Jews, but now they began to preach to the Gentiles as such. This was after the conversion of Cornelius, and probably in the year A.D. 42. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them:—“ The hand of the Lord” is an Old Testament phrase (Exodus 9:3; Isaiah 59:1) and is used frequently by Luke (Luke 1:66; Acts 4:28 Acts 4:30 Acts 13:11). This was proof that the Lord was with them in preaching the gospel to Gentiles; it also confirmed the word which was preached to them. As a result of this “ a great number that believed turned unto the Lord.” Turn to the Lord is a common expression for Gentiles who believed on Christ. (Acts 14:15 Acts 15:19 Acts 26:18 Acts 26:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:9.) “ A great number” of Gentiles were converted ; we do not know how many, but we do know that a church was established in Antioch. Antioch now is to become the center from which the gospel is spread throughout the Gentile world, as Jerusalem was the center of preaching the gospel to the Jews.

COMES TO ANTIOCH Acts 11:22-24 22 And the report concerning them—The church had been established at Antioch and was composed largely of Gentile Christians. The conversion of Cornelius and the discussion which followed his conversion prepared the apostles and the church at Jerusalem for the good news of the young but fast-growing church at Antioch. News did not travel fast at that time, but the church in Jerusalem heard of the establishment of the church at Antioch, and “ sent forth Barnabas as far as Antioch.” The first mention we have of Barnabas was a very favorable one. (Acts 4:36-37.) Here he sold his field and “ brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet” for distribution in helping those in need. The next mention that we have of him is when he introduced and commended the new convert Saul to the apostles at Jerusalem. (Acts 9:27.) Now we have the church at Jerusalem sending him to Antioch. Barnabas belonged to Cyprus; he was sent to Antioch as Peter and John had been sent to Samaria. (Acts 8:14.) Barnabas was a good man, judicious, broadminded, and generous. He was of the tribe of Levi, spoke Greek, and was well qualified to mix with the people of Antioch; they could trust him to give wise counsel and to bring an accurate report to Jerusalem. 23 who, when he was come,—Barnabas was full of the Holy Spirit; he was possibly acquainted with those who had gone to Antioch and first preached the gospel there; as he was a Grecian Jew, he would be in sympathy with the Gentile converts, and would be welcomed by the Christians in Antioch of both Jews and Gentiles. When Barnabas saw “ the grace of God” he was glad. He “ ex¬horted them all.” His first name was Joseph, but the apostles surnamed him Barnabas, “ which is, being interpreted, Son of exhortation.” (Acts 4:36.) Barnabas had a special gift for work of this kind; he exhorted these Christians with one purpose of heart to “ cleave unto the Lord.” “ Cleave” here is from the original “ pros- menein,” and means “ to keep on remaining loyal” to the Lord; he exhorted them to be persistent; this was needed in such a pagan city as Antioch. 24 for he was a good man,—Very few times in the Bible is one called “ a good man” ; Barnabas came in this class. He was good and full of the Holy Spirit. This explains his conduct. Besides being really good, he was full of the Holy Spirit and faith. As a result of his labors “ much people was added unto the Lord.” These people were added to the Lord when they were added to the church; they were added to the church when they heard the gospel, believed it, repented of their sins, and were baptized into Christ. This is the way people were added to the Lord.

It should be noticed how prominent “ the Lord” is made here. Christ is called “ the Lord Jesus” (verse 20); the “ hand of the Lord” was with them (verse 21); and the believers turned “ unto the Lord” (verse 21); Barnabas encouraged the people to cleave “ unto the Lord” (verse 23); and much people was added “ unto the Lord” (verse 24). The result of Barnabas’ visit to Antioch was that “ much people was added unto the Lord” ; that is, literally, a great multitude was added to the Lord. We now have a large congrega¬tion of disciples in Antioch.

PAUL BROUGHT TO ANTIOCH Acts 11:25-26 25 And he went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul;—After Saul’ s conversion he went into Arabia and returned to Damascus; next we find him in Jerusalem; he did but little work in Jerusalem ; Barnabas had commended him to the apostles and the church there, but it was thought best for Saul to go to another field; so when it was found that the Jews were seeking to kill him, the brethren “ brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.” (Acts 9:30.) It seems that he did not remain idle in Cilicia (Galatians 1:21), but preached the gospel in Cilicia and Syria (Acts 15:41). The work was too heavy for Barnabas in Antioch, so he went to Tarsus, about eighty miles away, to find Saul. “ Seek” is from the original “ anazetesai,” and means “ to seek or hunt up” ; the word suggests that Barnabas had some difficulty in finding Saul. The Holy Spirit guided Barnabas in his search, and Barnabas had full confidence in Saul as being the right person to help in the great work at Antioch. 26 and when he had found him,—After finding Saul and reporting to him of the great work that had been done at Antioch, Saul accepted the invitation to join Barnabas in the work of the Lord in that field. They labored together “ for a whole year” “ with the church” at Antioch. This is the second time Barnabas introduces Saul; Barnabas here and for more than a year later appears as the leader, and not Saul. (Acts 13:1-2.) Barnabas leads in the first great work that is done with Saul. They not only preached the gospel to the unsaved, but they edified the church: they “ taught much people.” and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.—Up to this time believers in Christ had been called “ believers,” “ disciples,” “ saints,” “ brethren,” “ those of the Way” ; but now they receive a new name. Much discussion has been had as to who called them “ Christians.” “ Were called” shows that they not only called themselves by that name, but that others called them by that name. “ Were called” is from the original “ chrematisai,” and has the force of divine command. (Matthew 2:12 Matthew 2:22; Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22.) However, some claim that the word does not have that meaning here, but that it has the same meaning as Romans 7:3, and means to be called or named by someone else from one’ s business. Some contend that the name was given by their enemies as a name of contempt. It matters but little as to who first coined the name and applied it to the disciples of Christ, since we have the name divinely approved by Peter in 1 Peter 4:16. Here Peter, speaking or writing by the Holy Spirit, says: “ If a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name.” The other instance in divine record where the name is used is in Acts 26:28, where Agrippa acknowledges that Paul is persuading him to be a Christian. “ Christians” is from the Greek “ Christianous” ; this termination was frequent in Latin in the early days; whether this name was derived from the Latin or not, the termination became common enough in Greek, and therefore there is no necessity to ascribe the name “ Christianos” to a Roman origin. Later “ Christianos” was modified to “ Chrestianos” (both words being pronounced alike).

Each of the three languages has contributed to the formation of this word. The thought is Jewish, denoting the Anointed One; the root, Christ, is Greek; the termination, ianoi, is Latin. So in the provi-dence of God, the same three nations whose differing dialects pro¬claimed above the cross, “ Jesus the King of the Jews,” now unite in forming a word which for all time shall be applied to those who follow Christ. Antioch, the center from which the gospel radiated among the Gentiles, has given us the common name, Christian.

THE FAMINE AND RELIEF Acts 11:27-30 27 Now in these days there came down prophets—“ In these days” means the time while the church at Antioch was being increased with a great multitude of Gentile converts during the year’ s residence there of Barnabas and Saul. “ Prophets” came down “ from Jerusalem unto Antioch.” Many think of a prophet as one who foretells future events; this is included in the term, but does not cover its meaning entirely. The word is a compound Greek word, “ pro,” which means “ before, in front of” ; and “ phemi,” which means “ to speak” ; hence, “ prophet” means to speak before, in front of, or speak beforehand, in behalf of, instead of one; hence, it means one who speaks for God; hence, a teacher. Judas and Silas are called prophets. (Acts 15:32.) They were not just “ foretellers,” but they were “ forthtellers.” These teachers came from Jerusalem to Antioch to instruct further the disciples in Antioch. 28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus,—This Agabus is mentioned again in Acts 21:10; he was from Judea, and by a very simple object lesson he foretold the imprisonment of Paul at Jerusalem. At this time Agabus “ signified by the spirit” that there should “ be a great famine over all the world.” Luke, the historian, records that this took place during “ the days of Claudius.” The date of this severe famine was A.D. 45. “ Agabus” means “ locust,” he predicted this great famine literally over all the inhabited earth which occurred during the reign of Claudius Caesar. His reign was from A.D. 41 to A.D. 54, and this famine in A.D. 45. Some authorities put it at other dates as A.D. 44, 46, and 48; some claim that this great famine continued from A.D. 44 to A.D. 48. 29 And the disciples, every man—The Gentile Christians volunteered to send help to the Christians in Judea; this was an act of Christian charity on their part to help their Jewish brethren. We are not told how much relief was sent, but “ every man according to his ability” purposed to send relief. The prophecy of this fam¬ine was made in order to give the disciples time to collect money and food in advance of the need; the disciples believed Agabus and proceeded at once to prepare for the relief. The warning of Agabus stirred the Christians in Antioch so that they determined to do what they could for those in distress. 30 which also they did,—When the time came that the relief was needed, the church at Antioch selected Barnabas and Saul to take the relief to those who were suffering in Judea. After the famine began and after the persecution by Herod, and Herod’ s death in A.D. 44, most of the Christians at Jerusalem were proba¬bly poor. Barnabas and Saul carried the relief “ to the elders.” This is the first mention of “ the elders” of the church. The word “ elders” here comes from the Greek “ presbuterous,” from which we get our word “ presbyters.” In Acts 20: 17 and verse 28 “ elders” and “ bishops” are used interchangeably, as in Titus 1:5 Titus 1:7. It is probable that the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem took place after the events recorded in Acts 12:1-23. This visit is omitted in Galatians 1:18 Galatians 2:1.

Jerusalem is not mentioned here, but Judea is mentioned; this has caused some to think that the relief was not sent to the elders of the church at Jerusalem. Barnabas was especially suited to carry this relief to the suffering because he had come down from Jerusalem.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 11Act 11:1-3. The novel scene which had transpired in Cæsarea was soon reported abroad over the country. (1) “Now the apostles and brethren throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God. (2) And when Peter went up to Jerusalem, they of the circumcision disputed with him, (3) saying, You went into the house of men uncircumcised, and did eat with them.” The prejudice from which Peter had been delivered was still preying upon the hearts of his Jewish brethren, including the other apostles. The same change is now to be wrought in them which had already been effected in him. But there is no repetition, in their case, of the vision and voices which had occurred in his. On the contrary, there is nothing brought to bear upon them but what is contained in the words of Peter. Acts 11:4-17. (4) “But Peter related the matter to them in order from the beginning, saying, (5) I was in the city of Joppa, praying, and saw, in a trance, a vision, a certain vessel like a great sheet descending, let down from heaven by the four corners, and it came to me. (6) Having looked intently into it, I perceived and saw four-footed animals, and wild beasts, and reptiles of the earth, and birds of the air. (7) And I heard a voice, saying to me, Arise, Peter; kill and eat. (8) But I said, Not so, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth. (9) But the voice from heaven answered me, What God has cleansed, do not you make common. (10) This was done three times, and all was drawn up into heaven again. (11) And behold, three men immediately came to the house in which I was, sent to me from Cæsarea, (12) and the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. But these six brethren also went with me, and we entered into the man’s house. (13) Then he told us that he had seen an angel in his house, standing and saying to him, Send to Joppa, and call for Simon who is surnamed Peter, (14) who will speak words to you by which you and all your house will be saved. (15) And while I was beginning to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them as upon us in the beginning. (16) Then I remembered the word of the Lord, that he said, John immersed in water, but you shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit. (17) Since, then, God gave to them the same gift as to us who already believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I should be able to withstand God?” The events here rehearsed by Peter had removed his own prejudice, and now, through the words which he addressed to the brethren, the same vision of unclean animals, with the command to kill and eat; the same command of the Spirit to go with the Gentile messengers; the authority of the angel who had ordered him to be sent for; and, finally, the same immersion of those Gentiles in the Holy Spirit, are all pressing upon their minds and hearts, with precisely the same import that they did upon his. Acts 11:18. The effect of these influences was the same upon them that it had been upon Peter. (18) “When they heard these things they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then has God to the Gentiles also granted repentance in order to life.” So greatly are their hearts enlarged, that they now glorify God for the very things on account of which they had just been censuring Peter. We have, in this incident, an exhibition of the actual method by which the minds of Christians were enlightened, and their hearts enlarged. We see that Peter was first enlightened by a combination of facts, visions, and words, so as to understand the will of God in the matter, and that through this enlightened understanding he was made to feel the weight of divine authority. Although the Spirit of God dwelt in him continually, and imparted ideas to his understanding directly, yet, when his heart was to be relieved from an injurious prejudice, the end was accomplished by means of ideas communicated to his understanding. Thus the case stands with Peter, who occupies the position of an original recipient of truth. With the brethren in Jerusalem, who occupied the exact position toward this particular subject which we do to all revealed truth, there is this difference, that all the influence, both upon the understanding and the emotional nature, exerted in their case, reached them through Peter’s words. Still, the influence was not inherent in the words, but in the facts of which the words were the medium of communication. Moreover, the facts had such an influence only because they indicated the will of God. It was then, at last, the moral power of God, embodied in the facts reported by Peter, but brought to bear through the words of Peter, which so changed their hearts. They had only to believe what Peter reported, in order to feel this power. If they had retained their prejudice after this, they would have felt that they were resisting God. In precisely this way the converting and sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit reaches the hearts of men now. We do not have direct communication with heavenly beings, as Peter had, but, like the brethren in Jerusalem, we hear from his lips, and the lips and pens of other original recipients, the same truth which affected their minds and hearts, and we find ours affected by it in the same way. When we resist, we are resisting not Peter and Paul, but the Holy Spirit, by whom they spoke and wrote. The fact that the Holy Spirit dwells in us is no proof that his action upon our moral sentiments is direct or immediate; for he dwelt in Peter, and in the apostles who arraigned Peter; yet his action upon even their hearts was mediate, through ideas communicated. He who asserts for us a species of spiritual influence which was not exerted even upon the apostles and other inspired me, is, to say the least, a daring speculator. Acts 11:19. The scene of the narrative is now about to change to another Roman province, and to the city of Antioch. Preparatory to this transition, the historian glances back over a period of several years, to the dispersion of the Jerusalem Church. He had made that event his point of departure in rehearsing the labors of Philip and the early history of Saul, and now, with a degree of system in his arrangement which should not be overlooked, he starts again at the same point to sweep over another part of the wide field before him. (19) “Now they who were scattered abroad from the persecution which arose about Stephen, traveled as far as Phenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to none but Jews.” From this we learn that while Philip was preaching in Samaria, and Saul in Damascus and Arabia, others of the brethren were spreading the truth into Phenicia, the island of Cyprus, and Antioch in Syria. Thus the knowledge of salvation was sounded out from Jerusalem simultaneously into all the surrounding provinces. Acts 11:20-21. Among the brethren engaged in these labors, Luke chooses to follow in a narrative only those who founded the Church in Antioch. (20) “And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, having come into Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. (21) The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.” These men were not immediately from Cyprus and Cyrene, but were a part of those dispersed from Jerusalem. The expression, “ Some of them,” referring to the preceding sentence, thus designates them. The Hellenists were doubtless numerous in Antioch, from the fact if its being the chief commercial city of Western Asia; and these brethren, being also Hellenists, were best suited for reaching their ears. Acts 11:22-24. Jerusalem was still the chief center of religious influence, being the chief residence of the apostles. They kept a watchful eye upon the movements of brethren in all directions, supplying help and counsel according to the demand of circumstances. They were anxious to hear of every new success, and the brethren were equally glad to report it. (22) “Then tidings of these things came to the ears of the Church in Jerusalem, and they sent forth Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. (23) When he arrived and saw the favor of God, he rejoiced, and exhorted them all with purpose of heart to cling to the Lord. (24) For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and faith; and a great multitude were added to the Lord.” It is not often that Luke bestows a direct encomium upon the characters of whom he writes, as he does here upon Barnabas. But it was proper, in this case, that the selection of Barnabas for this mission, in preference to other brethren, should be accounted for by stating the noble qualities which led to the choice. He was certainly a most proper man to send to a congregation of young disciples, to exhort them to cling to the Lord. Acts 11:25. While Barnabas was engaged in these faithful labors in Antioch, he seems to have longed for the co-operation of a kindred spirit. He had not forgotten the converted persecutor, whom he had kindly taken by the hand when all the apostles were suspicious of him, and introduced to the confidence of the brethren. An act of kindness often makes as deep an impression on the heart of the benefactor as on that of the recipient. The heart of Barnabas had followed Saul when the brethren sent him away to Tarsus, and now that he needs a fellow-laborer, his heart directs him where to seek. (25) “Then Barnabas departed to Tarsus to seek Saul; (26) and having found him he brought him to Antioch.” The attachment being mutual, he found no difficulty in securing the object of his mission. Acts 11:26. The united efforts of two such men as Barnabas and Saul, in a community where the gospel was already favorably heard, could not fail of good results. (26) “And it came to pass, that during a whole year they were associated together in the Church, and taught a great multitude; and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” There has been much dispute as to whether this new name was given by Barnabas and Saul under divine authority, or by the Gentiles of Antioch, or by the disciples themselves. It would serve no practical purpose to decide between the latter two suppositions, for, with whichever party it originated, it was subsequently accepted by the disciples in general. As to the supposition that the name was given by direct revelation through Barnabas and Saul, a thorough discussion of its merits would require more verbal criticism than is suited to the design of this work, and, at the same time, be less decisive in reference to the authority of the name in question, than the course of investigation which we prefer to institute. We retain, therefore, the common version of the passage, which is sustained by the great mass of critics of all ages and all parties, while we seek a more certain basis on which to rest the divine authority of the new name than verbal criticism can establish. If the New Testament furnishes any names for the people of God, its authority in reference to their use is not less imperative than in reference to any other use of language. We can have no more right, in this case, to substitute other names for them, or to add others to them, than to do the same in reference to the names of the apostles, of the Holy Spirit, or of Christ. Religious names are significant. They not only distinguish the bodies to which they belong, as do modern names of individuals, but they distinguish them by a condensed description of their peculiarities. All the peculiarities of a religious denomination are expressed by the denominational name in its current import. Hence, to call a Baptist by the name Methodist would be worse than to call Smith by the name of Jones; for, besides miscalling him, it would be misrepresenting his religious principles. It is true, that, in thus miscalling the Baptist, you have not changed him into a Methodist, for he remains the same by whatever name you call him. Still, you have miscalled him and done him injustice. Truth and justice, therefore, require us to use religious names with reference to their significance. If denominational names are significant, those originally applied to the body of Christ are not less so. They distinguish the people of God by designating some of their peculiarities. These peculiarities were found either in the relations which they sustained, or in the character which they exhibited to the world. The first relation which attracted the attention of the world, as they followed Jesus from place to place, was that of teacher and pupils. This suggested the name disciples, or learners, by which they were first designated, and which is the most common designation in the gospel narratives. From the fact that there were disciples of John, with whom they might be confounded, they were, at first, styled “ disciples of Jesus.” But when John had decreased, and Jesus had increased, the limiting words were dispensed with, and the term disciple was appropriated, so that, standing alone, it always meant a disciple of Jesus. In the four gospels the limiting words are commonly employed; but in Acts, where Luke is giving some of their history as a great people spreading through the earth, after once calling them “ disciples of the Lord,” at the time Saul starts after them to Damascus, he drops the limiting words, and thence throughout the whole narrative he calls them simply the “ disciples.” When the disciples assumed a new relation to their teacher, it necessarily brought them into a new relation to one another. From the nature of the moral lessons which they were learning, and which they were required to put into immediate practice, this relation became very intimate and very affectionate. It gave rise to their designation as “the brethren.” They were so styled first by Jesus, saying to them: “ Be not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher, and all you are brethren.“ This term, however, as a distinctive appellation of the whole body, is used only once in the gospel narratives, where John says of the report that he would not die: “ This saying went abroad among the brethren.“ In Acts it frequently occurs in this sense; but still more frequently in the Epistles. The latter being addressed to the brethren, and treating of their mutual obligations, this term most naturally takes precedence in them, and the term disciple, which is used in speaking of a brother rather than to him, is as naturally omitted. This accounts for the fact that the latter term is not once found in the Epistles. This increasing currency of the term brethren in the later apostolic age is intimately associated with the introduction of another name which came into use in the same period. Jesus frequently called the disciples his own brethren, and taught them, in praying to say, “Our Father, who art in heaven;” but the title, “ children of God,” which grew out of the relation thus indicated, was not applied to them during this early period. It is not so applied in any of the gospels but John’s, and in this only in two instances, where it is evident that he is using the phraseology of the time in which he writes rather than of the period of which he writes. This appellation, as a current and cotemporaneous title, is found only in the Epistles, being brought into use after the disciples had obtained more exalted conceptions of the blessed privileges and high honors which God had conferred upon them. It extorted an admiring comment from John, in his old age: “ Behold, what manner of love the Father bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God!“ By this time the disciples exhibited to the world a well-defined character. It was such as identified them with those who, in the Old Testament, were called saints, and this suggested the use of this term as one of their appellations. The persecutions which they were enduring still further identified them with the holy “ prophets who were before them.” This name occurs first on the lips of Ananias when he objected to approaching Saul of Tarsus. He says to the Lord, “ I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints in Jerusalem.” In the Epistles this name is used more frequently than any other. All of the names we have now considered are well adapted to their specific purposes; but all of them presuppose some knowledge of the people whom they are intended to distinguish. An entire stranger would not at first know who was meant by the disciples, or the brethren; but would ask, Disciples of whom? brethren of whom? Nor would he know who were the children of God, or the saints, until you had informed him to what certain characters these terms apply. There was need, therefore, of a name less ambiguous to those who had the least information on the subject— one better adapted to the great world. This, like all the others, originated from circumstances which demanded it for immediate use. When a Church was established in Antioch, it became an object of inquiry to strangers, brought thither by the pursuits of commerce, from all parts of the world.

They were strangers to the cause of Christ in reference to all but the wonderful career of its founder. The whole world had heard something of Christ, as the remarkable personage who was put to death under Pontius Pilate, though many had heard nothing of the early history of his Church. From this fact, when strangers came to Antioch, and heard the new party who were attracting so much attention there, called Christians, they at once recognized them as followers of that Christ of whom they had already heard. This explains the fact stated in the text, that “ the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” The fact that Luke here adopts it, and that both Paul and Peter afterward recognized it, gives it all the validity of inspired usage, and, therefore, all the weight of divine authority. That it is a New Testament name is undisputed, and this renders its divine authority indisputable. This name, whether given by divine or by human authority, was not designed as an exclusive appellation, seeing that the others were continued in use after its introduction. It merely took its proper place among the other names, to answer its own special purpose. To sum up the facts now adduced, the New Testament usage in reference to names is this: When the followers of Jesus were contemplated with reference to their relation to him as their great teacher, they were called disciples. When the mind of the speaker was fixed more particularly on their relation to one another, they were styled brethren. When their relation to God was in the foreground, they were called children of God. When they were designated with special reference to character, they were called saints. But when they were spoken of with the most general reference to their great leader, they were called Christians. A practical observance of the exact force of each of these names would soon conform our speech to the primitive model, and would check a tendency to exalt any one name above another, by giving to each its proper place. The names now enumerated are all that are furnished by the New Testament. We have assumed above that it would be subversive of divine authority for disciples to adopt any other names. The truth of this assumption is demonstrated by the rebuke which Paul administers to the Corinthians for this very sin. He says to them: “ It has been declared to me, my brethren, by them who are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?

Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you immersed into the name of Paul?” Now, if it was sinful for these brethren to assume the names of men, how can it be innocent in us to do the very same thing? The question demands the most solemn and trembling consideration of this generation. It is no extenuation of this fault to urge that the divisions which now exist are of a different character from those in Corinth; for the difference is entirely in their favor. They had not gone so far as to divide the Church into separate organizations, but had merely formed parties within it, like the parties of the present day, which sometimes exist within a single denomination. The sin of to-day is, therefore, much greater than theirs. It is equally vain to excuse our sin, by urging that the party names now worn are necessary, in order to distinguish the parties from one another. If the existence of the parties themselves were authorized by the Scriptures, this excuse would be valid; for we could not censure ourselves for the unavoidable results of that which is itself right. But the existence of party divisions constitutes the chief crime in the case, and leads to the sin of party names, as stealing leads to lying. The thief must inevitably lie, or acknowledge his theft; so the partisan must either cling to his party name, or give up his party. The name, in the mean time, is a necessary evil, but, being self-imposed, it is none the less evil from being necessary. Not to multiply words upon this point, it is sufficiently evident, from the above considerations, that parties and party names among Christians should be obliterated. If we say that it is impossible to obliterate them, we are simply saying that it is impossible to bring Christians back to the New Testament model— for, in the New Testament period, there were no such divisions, and therefore a restoration of that state of the Church would be the destruction of parties and party names. If this is impossible, it can only be from one cause, and that is, that men professing to take the word of God as their guide are so hypocritical in this profession, that they will, at all hazard, persevere in despising its authority in reference to a prominent item of duty. How shameful it is, that men will uphold parties and party names, which they know perfectly that a strict conformity to the New Testament would utterly destroy! There is only one means of escape from this crying sin. Those who love God must break loose at once, as individuals, from the bondage of party, and take a position where they may be upholders of no party, and wearers of no party name. All who act thus will find themselves planted together on the plain letter of the Scriptures, as their only rule of faith and practice. In addition to the observations already submitted on this topic, we remark that every significant name which a man wears imposes some obligation upon him, and appeals to him incessantly, though silently, to discharge this obligation faithfully. Does a man in foreign country declare himself an American, he realizes that there is a peculiar demeanor required by the fact, and feels constantly called upon to act worthy of the name he wears. Even a man’s patronymic, which means no more than that he belongs to a certain family, is forever warning him not to disgrace the name of his father. So it must be with all religious names. Is a man called a disciple of Jesus? He remembers that it is the part of a disciple to learn what his teacher imparts, and to imitate his example. Whenever he is reminded that this is his name, he feels the necessity of studying the teachings of Jesus, and walking in his footsteps. Whenever he finds himself neglecting these duties, his very name rebukes him. This thought was not overlooked by the great Teacher himself. He says to those Jews who believed on him, “ If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Again he says, “ It is enough for the disciple to be as his teacher;” and “ whosoever does not bear his cross and come after me, can not be my disciple.“ Thus he gives emphasis to that exhortation which the name itself is constantly sounding in the ear of conscience. But the disciple is also one of the brethren— a brother to the Lord Jesus, who is the oldest brother of a large family. This name is full of affection and sympathy. I can not meet a man and call him brother, without some thought of the fraternal sympathy which should exist between us. If, when my heart is poisoned by unkind feelings toward a disciple, he meets me and calls me brother, I feel reproached by the word, and am choked in the attempt to pronounce it in return. It will never let me forget the law of love. Its influence is recognized by Peter, who says, “ Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently.” There is another obligation involved in this name, arising from the fact that the brothers in one family stand on an equal footing in reference to authority, no one having supremacy over the others, but all subject to the father. Jesus makes use of this fact as the ground of a serious injunction. “ Be not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher, and all you are brethren; and call no man on earth your Father, for One who is in heaven is your Father; neither be called Leaders, for one is your Leader, the Christ.” The fact that we are brethren is thus made to bear directly against that thirsting for titles of distinction, and for rank and authority in the Church of Christ, which is invariably the offspring of an unholy ambition. The modern Leaders of sects— the ghostly Fathers of mystic Babylon, and the swelling titles by which Doctors of Divinity, and the Reverend and Right Reverend Bishops and Archbishops of the present age are distinguished, exhibit the most flagrant contempt for this solemn commandment of the Lord. A man who understands the meaning of the fact that he is one among many brethren, is guarded, by the humility of this title, from participation in a sin like this. If such are the obligations implied in the names disciple and brethren, what shall we say of that more exalted title, children of God? It originates from a supposed likeness between them and their Father. We are commanded to love our enemies, to bless them who curse us, to do good to them who hate us, and pray for them who persecute us, that we may be children of our Father who is in heaven. Thus the very highest moral obligations imposed in the word of God must ever press upon the soul of him who ears this title, inciting him to become a partaker of the divine nature. When, in addition to these appellations, you call a man a saint, you thrust him as a companion into the midst of all the holy men of old, and make him struggle to be like them. So palpable is the force of this name, that the mass of professed Christians have long since ceased to wear it. When men apostasized from what its meaning indicates, it hung so heavily upon the conscience, that it became like a coal of fire on their heads, and they found relief in throwing it off from themselves and appropriating it to a few of the worthy dead. If we would ever come back from the long apostasy of ages, we must learn to wear the name saint, and walk worthy of the company with which it identifies us. The term saint means a holy one, and Peter exhorts, “ As he who called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of behavior; because it is written, Be ye holy for I am holy.” The name Christian embodies within itself, in a more generic form, all the obligations specifically expressed by the other names. Being derived from the name of him who is “ head over all things for the Church,” whose name is above every name, it is a title of peculiar honor and glory. It calls upon the man who wears it to act a part in consonance with the historic memories which cluster around it, and encourages him with the reflection that he wears a high dignity even when despised and spit upon by the powers of earth. So thought Peter, when this name was most despised. He says, “ If any suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on this account.” “ If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, happy are you; for the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.” When the servant of Christ remembers that all these names belong to him; that, because he is supposed to be learning of Christ, he is called a disciple; because he is one of the happy and loving family of equals, they call him brother; because the Father of that family, whose character he strives to imitate, is God himself, he is called a child of God; that, because he is presumed to be holy, he is called a saint; and that, for all these reasons, he wears the name of him who by his mediation and intercession enables him to be all that he is, how powerful the incentive to every virtue, constantly yet silently pressing upon his conscience, and how stern the rebuke to every vice! When we turn from this deep and holy philosophy of scriptural names, to consider the import of mere partisan badges, how heartless they all appear! The constant and only influence of party names is to intensify mere partisan feelings. The man who wears the name Methodist feels called upon by the fact to simply act like a Methodist; and when that name is appealed to among those who honor it, it is only to exhort one another to diligence in that which is peculiarly expected of a mere Methodist. So with all other party names. There is nothing in any of them to excite the longings of a sin-sick soul, and hence they are never appealed to when sinners are exhorted to repent. On the contrary, the most zealous partisans are often heard to assure sinners, “ Our object is not to make Presbyterians of you, or Methodists, or Baptists; but we want you to become Christians.” How strange it is that men will pertinaciously cling to names which they are thus ashamed of in the presence of penitent sinners, when there are others at hand given by God himself, full of honor to the wearer, and of attraction to all who seek salvation! Acts 11:27-30. We have dwelt long upon the new name given in Antioch; we must now consider other interesting events which occurred there about the close of the year in which Barnabas and Saul labored there together. (27) “In those days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch, (28) and one of them, named Agabus, arose and signified through the Spirit that there would be a great famine throughout the whole world, which also occurred in the days of Claudius. (29) Then the disciples, every one according as he was prospered, determined to send relief to the brethren who dwelt in Judea; (30) which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.” This is the first account we have of the gift of prophesy among the disciples, but Agabus and his companions appear to have been already known as prophets, doubtless from previous exercise of this gift. The brethren, therefore, did not hesitate to give full credit to the prediction, and knowing that such a famine must cause peculiar distress among the extremely poor in Judea, they were prompt to supply their wants even before the period of distress arrived. Their benevolence is not less remarkable than that of the Church in Jerusalem at the beginning. The poor for whom that Church provided were in their midst, and suffering from present want; but the disciples in Antioch anticipate a state of distress yet in the future, on the part of brethren to whom they are personally unknown, and provide for it in advance. No more striking evidence could be given, at once, of their benevolence, and their confidence in the predictions of their own prophets. This benevolent supply was sent to the Elders, by whom, we are to understand, it was distributed to the final recipients. This is the first time that elders, as a distinct class, are mentioned in connection with the congregations of disciples. They are mentioned, however, as a class of officials then well known, and, consequently, we must infer that they had been appointed in the Churches at a still earlier period.

“ACTS OF THE "

Chapter Eleven IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To glean from Peter’s own account of the conversion of the household of Cornelius, what was the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles

2. To note the beginning of the Lord’s church in Antioch, and the early ministry of Barnabas and Saul

SUMMARY The apostles and brethren in Judea soon heard of the Gentiles' conversion. When Peter returned to Jerusalem, brethren who were “of the circumcision” (i.e., Jewish Christians) took issue with his eating with uncircumcised men. Peter carefully explained the sequence of events, including the vision in Joppa and the manner in which the Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as he began to speak to them. The baptism of the Spirit on the Gentiles was understood to indicate that Gentiles were now allowed to hear the words of salvation, and that they could repent in order to have life (Acts 11:1-18).

Luke then records how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Antioch. Those scattered after the persecution of Stephen (Acts 11 :Acts 8:1 Acts 8:4) included men from Cyprus and Cyrene who began preaching Jesus to the Hellenists (Grecian Jews). When a great number believed and turned to the Lord, the news was soon heard by those in the church at Jerusalem. Barnabas was sent to Antioch, and rejoiced in what he saw. He first spent sometime encouraging them by himself, but later went to Tarsus to find Saul. For a full year they worked together with the church in Antioch and taught many people. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch, and in hearing from the prophet Agabus that there was going to be a famine, they displayed their Christ-like character by sending relief according to their ability to brethren in Judea. This they did, sending it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:19-30).

OUTLINE I. OF THE (Acts 11:1-18) A. PETER BY JEWISH (Acts 11:1-3)1. Apostles and brethren in Judea hear that Gentiles received the Word of God 2. Peter challenged upon his return to Jerusalem a. Those of the circumcision contend with him b. They accuse him of eating with the uncircumcised

B. PETER THE ’ (Acts 11:4-18)1. He explains the events in the order in which they occur a. His vision in Joppa with the sheet and the unclean beasts b. The voice from heaven: “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” c. The arrival of men from Caesarea at the conclusion of the vision d. The Spirit telling him to go with them, accompanied by six brethren e. How Cornelius was told to by an angel to send for Peter who would tell him words by which they would be saved f. How as he began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles just as upon the apostles at the beginning 2. Peter’s reaction to the events a. He remembered the Lord’s promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit b. He reasoned that if Gentiles received the same promise as they did when they believed, who was he to stand in God’s way? 3. The reaction by those who heard Peter’s account a. They became silent, and then glorified God b. They concluded that God has granted Gentiles repentance to life

II. THE OF AND SAUL (Acts 11:19-30) A. THEIR WORK IN ANTIOCH (Acts 11:19-26)1. Those scattered by persecution preach the word a. They travel as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching only to the Jews b. Some from Cyprus and Cyrene preach to the Hellenists in Antioch 2. They enjoy great success in Antioch a. The hand of the Lord is with them b. A great number believe and turn to the Lord 3. Barnabas arrives in Antioch a. Sent by the church in Jerusalem b. Glad to see the grace of God c. Encouraging them to continue with the Lord with purpose of heart d. He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith e. A great many people are added to the Lord 4. Saul arrives in Antioch a. Brought from Tarsus by Barnabas b. Assembling with the church for a whole year, teaching a great many people c. The disciples are first called Christians in Antioch

B. THEIR WORK IN JUDEA (Acts 11:27-30)1. Prompted by prophets coming from Jerusalem to Antioch 2. Agabus shows by the Spirit that there will be a famine 3. The disciples determine to send relief to brethren in Judea 4. They send it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- Conversion of the Gentiles defended (Acts 11:1-18)

• The ministry of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:19-30)

2. What had the apostles and brethren in Judea heard? (Acts 11:1)- That the Gentiles had received the word of God

3. When Peter returned to Jerusalem, who contended with him? Why? (Acts 11:2-3)- Those of the circumcision (Jewish Christians)

• Because he had eaten with the uncircumcised

4. How did Peter recount the events that had happened? (Acts 11:4)- In order from the beginning

5. What happened while Peter was praying in Joppa? (Acts 11:5)- In a trance he saw a vision with an object like a great sheet let down from heaven

6. What did he see as he observed it closely? (Acts 11:6)- All kinds of animals, creeping things and birds

7. What did a voice tell Peter to do? How did Peter respond? (Acts 11:7-8)- “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

• “Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.”

9. What was Peter then told? (Acts 11:9)- “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”

10. How many times was this repeated? (Acts 11:10)- Three times

11. What happened at that very moment? (Acts 11:11)- Three men stood before the house, having been sent to him from Caesarea

12. What did the Spirit tell Peter to do? Who went with him? (Acts 11:12)- To go with them, doubting nothing

• Six brethren

13. Upon arriving at the man’s house, what was Peter and his companions told? (Acts 11:13)- How he (Cornelius) had seen an angel, was told to send to Joppa for Peter

14. What was Cornelius told Peter would tell him? (Acts 11:14)- Words whereby he and his household would be saved

15. What happened as Peter began to speak? (Acts 11:15)- The Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household, as upon the apostles at the beginning (Acts 2:1-4)

16. What did that bring to Peter’s remembrance? (Acts 11:16)- Jesus’ promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5)

17. What conclusion did Peter draw? What did those who heard him conclude? (Acts 11:17-18)- Who was he to withstand God?

• God has granted Gentiles repentance to life

18. What did those who were scattered after Stephen’s death do? (Acts 11:19)- Traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching to Jews only

19. What did some from Cyprus and Cyrene do when they came to Antioch? (Acts 11:20)- Preached the Lord Jesus to the Hellenists (Grecian Jews)

20. What was the response? (Acts 11:21)- A great number believed and turned to the Lord

21. What did those in Jerusalem do when they heard the news? (Acts 11:22)- Sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch

22. When Barnabas saw what happened, what was his reaction? (Acts 11:23)- He was glad, and encouraged them to continue with the Lord with purpose of heart

23. What kind of man was Barnabas? What kind of results accompanied his ministry? (Acts 11:24)- A good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith

• A great many people were added to the Lord

24. Who did Barnabas go to find in Tarsus? What did the two men do? (Acts 11:25-26)- Saul

• Returned to Antioch and assembled with the church for a year, teaching many people

25. What were disciples called for the first time in Antioch? (Acts 11:26)- Christians

26. Who came to Antioch from Jerusalem? What did one of them show by the Spirit? (Acts 11:27-28)- Prophets

• Agabus showed that there would be a great famine throughout the world

27. What did the disciples decide to do? How did they do it? (Acts 11:29-30)- To send relief to the brethren in Judea, according to their ability

• They sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul

Verse 1 There is a close relationship in Acts 9, 10, 11. In Acts 9, the “name bearer,” Saul of Tarsus, was chosen of God to bear the new name before Gentiles, kings and children of Israel; in Acts 10, the acceptance of Gentiles into the church of Christ was adopted as mandatory by the apostle Peter; and in this chapter, such acceptance of Gentiles was recognized as the official policy of the whole church, and the development of the first great Gentile congregation was recorded, this having taken place at Antioch. The prior conditions for the giving of the new name having been fulfilled by these developments, the new name was given at Antioch (Acts 11:26). First, there is the record of Peter’s defense of his conduct in the matter of association with Gentiles, resulting in full approval by the entire church (Acts 11:1-18). The third great section of Acts begins with Acts 11:19. Here begins the record of the movement of the church toward “the uttermost parts of the earth.” Luke began this section with a retrogression to the situation as he had explained it in Acts 8:1, that is, to the conditions prevailing immediately after the martyrdom of Stephen. Even from that early time, there had existed progressive efforts on the part of some to enlist Gentiles, especially at Antioch. Then came the mission of Barnabas from Jerusalem (Acts 11:22), his bringing of Saul to Tarsus (Acts 11:25), and the giving of the new name by “the mouth of the Lord” (Acts 11:26). Now the apostles and the brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. (Acts 11:1) PETER ON THE The implication at the close of the preceding chapter that perhaps Peter remained a while at Caesarea leads to the supposition that the startling news of what had occurred in the house of Cornelius had outrun Peter, arriving in Jerusalem before he did. Boles thought that “The news came to Jerusalem before Peter left Caesarea."[1] In any case, an event of such vast implications was certainly one of supreme interest. ENDNOTE: [1] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on the Acts (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1953), p. 176. Verse 2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him.They that were of the circumcision … included practically all of the entire discipleship in Jerusalem, and not merely “the circumcision party” which later developed. Peter’s views before the conversion of Cornelius were those of practically the whole church at that time. Furthermore, as Benson noted, “Even afterward, on one occasion, Peter withdrew himself from the believing Gentiles, for fear of the Jews (Galatians 2:12).[2]Contended with him … Alexander Campbell translated this place, “Disputed with him,” declaring that this “is more appropriate in questions of debate, and especially in such a category."[3] Goodspeed’s translation is, “The advocates of circumcision took him to task with having visited and eaten with men who were not Jews."[4] As so many have not failed to point out, “Peter was not regarded as any kind of pope' or overlord."[5] "It is evident that the Jewish Christians had no idea of the supremacy of Peter, much less his infallibility."[6]The complaint against Peter does not seem to have been that he had baptized a Gentile, but that he had baptized a Gentile without first requiring him to submit to circumcision and come under the law of Moses. [2] Joseph Benson, One Volume New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), in loco. [3] Alexander Campbell, Acts of Apostles (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House), p. 76. . [4] Edgar J. Goodspeed, The New Testament, An American Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923), p. 250. [5] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 176. [6] Joseph Benson, op. cit., in loco. Verse 3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.Wentest in ... is better translated "associated with."[7]To men uncircumcised ... The literal Greek here is, "men with a foreskin"; and "is more expressive of scorn than the merely negative form of the English."[8][7] Alexander Campbell, op. cit., p. 76. [8] John Wesley, One Volume New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), in loco. Verse 4 But Peter began, and expounded the matter unto them in order, saying, I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even unto me.The comment of Bruce is appreciated, who after noting the irresponsible speculations of Dibelius, declared the entire narrative here to be "perfectly coherent."[9] There are, of course, some slight variations in Peter's rehearsal of the episode here, when contrasted with the narrative of Acts 10. But, "the variations are few and of little importance."[10] For example, there is a touch of vividness in the personal remembrance of the great sheet coming "even unto me," as Peter said here, instead of its being "let down to the earth" (<a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/10/11" class="green-link">Acts 10:11</a>). Peter quite properly concluded that his best defense would be a straightforward narrative of the events and circumstances which had proved so convincing to himself. [9] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 234. [10] E. H. Plumptre, Ellicott's Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 72. Verse 6 Upon which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw the fourfooted beasts of the earth and wild beasts and creeping things and birds of the heaven. And I heard also a voice saying unto me, Rise, Peter; kill and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered my mouth. But a voice answered the second time out of heaven, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common. And this was done thrice: and all were drawn up again into heaven.For comments on this passage see the preceding chapter. Verse 11 And behold, forthwith three men stood before the house in which we were, having been sent from Caesarea unto me. And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man's house.No distinction ... This was the great word regarding Jews and Gentiles THEN; and so it still is. God has one plan of redemption for all men; and the Scriptures do not reveal any special plan for any race or condition of men. See <a href="/bible/parallel/ROM/3/22" class="green-link">Romans 3:22</a>. Six brethren ... Only here is it revealed that six men were Peter's companions on the mission to Caesarea. Verse 13 And he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house.Words whereby thou shalt be saved ... Implicit in this is the fact that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was not in order to save Cornelius, nor were all of the alms-giving and prayers sufficient to save him. As Bruce expressed it, "Salvation did not enter Cornelius' house until Peter came there with the gospel."[11] A necessary deduction from this is that Cornelius' baptism was a prior condition of his being saved, the command that he should be baptized being, in fact, the only commandment Peter addressed to him. Johnson declared that "This is the first instance of a household baptism named in Acts."[12] Who are meant by this "household" are "his kinsmen and near friends" (<a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/10/24" class="green-link">Acts 10:24</a>), there being no mention of infants. It is declared that these who were baptized in the Holy Spirit and commanded to be baptized in water "heard" the gospel (<a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/10/45" class="green-link">Acts 10:45</a>). [11] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 235. [12] B. W. Johnson, The New Testament with Explanatory Notes (Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company), p. 464. Verse 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning.A number of the most important facts are revealed in this short sentence. (1) As I began to speak ... The baptism of the Holy Spirit which occurred so early, before Peter could deliver his soul-saving message, shows that the purpose of this Spirit baptism was unrelated to the salvation of Cornelius, being intended rather as a sign to Peter and his companions that God had called the Gentiles through the gospel. (2) As on us at the beginning ... These words clearly designate Pentecost as "the beginning," this being the prime authority for accepting that date as the beginning of the church of Christ. There were in fact many beginnings on that day in Jerusalem. See in my Commentary on Luke under <a href="/bible/parallel/LUK/24/46" class="green-link">Luke 24:46-47</a>. (3) Peter's linking the event in Cornelius' house with that of Pentecost also justifies the conclusion pointed out by Campbell: It is a logical inference from these words, that from the day of Pentecost to the calling of the Gentiles, no similar display of the Spirit had been given, else they would not have gone so far back. The interval between Pentecost and this event was (at least) seven or eight years.[13]Thus, the clearly miraculous event of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is restricted to these two occasions, when upon the Jews at Pentecost and upon the Gentiles here, the whole of mankind was symbolically included. Therefore, it is undoubtedly true that, in the public manifestations of supernatural gifts, the Holy Spirit "descended only twice."[14] These outpourings were visible and were followed by miraculous demonstrations; and these two instances of such a thing are the "only scenes called in the Holy Scriptures, the baptism, or immersion in the Holy Spirit."[15] No phenomenon like that has been observed since. [13] Alexander Campbell, op. cit., p. 78. [14] Ibid. [15] Ibid. Verse 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.The fact that this remark about baptism was also made by John the Baptist (<a href="/bible/parallel/MRK/1/8" class="green-link">Mark 1:8</a> and parallels) is no reason at all for denying that Jesus also made it as proved by this verse and <a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/1/5" class="green-link">Acts 1:5</a>. Both John the Baptist who baptized in water and the Lord Jesus who baptized in the Holy Spirit found occasion to mention the contrast; and MacGregor's denial of this in his unsupported assertion that "The words are put on Jesus' lips"[16] (by Luke) is pedantry. Like many other so-called "liberal" comments on the New Testament, this one is extremely pedestrian. If Luke had recorded John the Baptist as saying this, the critic would have accused him of copying Mark; but, as Luke quoted Peter's remembrance of Jesus saying it, he insinuated that Luke invented this. This is exactly the type of criticism that has about succeeded in destroying the credibility of liberalism, as applied to Biblical exegesis. Bible students quickly learn to anticipate exactly the knee-jerk reactions which have come to take the place of thought in the study of the word of God. ENDNOTE: [16] G. H. C. MacGreggor, The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), Vol. IX, p. 144. Verse 17 If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God?As McGarvey said: This remark, taken in its historical connection, means that Peter would have been withstanding God, if he had refused to baptize the persons, or had made a difference in other respects between them and Jews.[17]ENDNOTE: [17] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company), p. 220. Verse 18 And when they heard these things, they held their peace and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles hath God granted repentance unto life.This should have been the end of the circumcision problem which disturbed the church at that time and for years afterward. The umbilical cord that bound the infant church to Judaism should have been accepted as cleanly cut by this decision approving Peter's actions; but Peter wavered, and the powerful Judaizing party in the Jerusalem church put up a prolonged struggle to drag circumcision and various other Jewish ceremonials into the church of Jesus Christ. "The Judaizers in opposing Paul were acting against the church from which they pretended to derive their authority."[18]Those who maintained the necessity for observing the older Covenant did so through misguided zeal œor the Law; but some did so from national pride and bigotry (<a href="/bible/parallel/GAL/6/13" class="green-link">Galatians 6:13</a>).[19]The problem was no doubt compounded by the large number of Pharisees who had accepted Christianity (<a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/6/7" class="green-link">Acts 6:7</a>); and it would not finally be laid to rest until the apostle Paul would deliver the book of Galatians as the coup de grace for Judaism in the church. Indeed the problem, although diminished, has survived to modern times in such things as sabbatarianism, instruments of music in worship, the burning of holy incense, etc. God hath granted repentance unto life ... In one sense repentance is something that men must do; in another it is something that God gives. There is no merit pertaining to men in such a thing as repentance, or any other obedience; and therefore, when God consents to permit repentance on man's part as one of the prior conditions of forgiving him, it is in essence a gift of God Unto life ... Whereas the New Testament speaks of faith being "unto" righteousness (<a href="/bible/parallel/ROM/10/10" class="green-link">Romans 10:10</a>), repentance being "unto" life (as here), and confession being "unto" salvation (<a href="/bible/parallel/ROM/10/10" class="green-link">Romans 10:10</a>), it is of baptism alone that the word of God declares it to be "into Christ" (<a href="/bible/parallel/ROM/6/3" class="green-link">Romans 6:3</a>; <a href="/bible/parallel/GAL/3/27" class="green-link">Galatians 3:27</a>), and "into one body" (<a href="/bible/parallel/1CO/12/13" class="green-link">1 Corinthians 12:13</a>). [18] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 73. [19] Cambridge Bible, One Volume New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), in loco. Verse 19 They therefore that were scattered abroad upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to none save only Jews.III. THE CHURCH MOVES TOWARD THE PARTS OF THE EARTHThe third and final great section of Acts begins here with <a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/11/19" class="green-link">Acts 11:19</a>, where appears the first movement of the church to the ends of creation. Antioch, being the first way station, the scene of the first great Gentile congregation gathered out of paganism, where God gave the sacred name "Christian" to his people, where the erstwhile persecutor, known later as Paul, would begin those labors which would determine to a large extent the future character of Christianity. As Peter's name and personality had dominated that previous section of Acts, Paul's would dominate this. This is a retrogression in Luke's narrative, going back to Jerusalem and memorable events there: the death of the first martyr, the first historical emergence of Saul of Tarsus, the dispersion of the disciples who went everywhere preaching the word, and the tribulation that accompanied those events. Save only Jews ... Despite the fact of the great commission having been intended for "all nations," the first Christians, almost exclusively Jewish in a racial sense, understood this as "all Jewish nations"! It was this fundamental misunderstanding which lasted several years, and which precipitated the supernatural events leading to the inclusion of Gentiles. The whole purpose of Christianity would have been nullified and thwarted if the world-saving gospel should have been reduced to the status of another Jewish sect; and there was no way that Almighty God would have permitted such a thing. Acts 9, 10, , 11 detail the dramatic, God-ordered events which stripped Christianity of its Jewish character and made a world-wide religion out of it. The formula now becomes a sort of technical term, indicative of the MESSAGE, the last message of God to the world. It is called "the word of the kingdom," or "the word of life"; but it is never called "the letter," but the WORD of gospel.[20]ENDNOTE: [20] Alexander Campbell, op. cit., p. 78. Verse 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus.Unto the Greeks also ... Despite the fact of the margin's giving "Grecian Jews" as an alternate reading here, it is clear that Gentiles are meant, the same being the only proper antithesis of "Jews only" in the preceding verse. As Hervey said: Speaking the word ... It has been noted that: The statement that the men of Cyprus and Cyrene preached the gospel to them is contrasted with the action of others, who preached to the Jews only. Obviously, therefore, these Hellenes were not Jews.[21]Thus, as Dummelow said, "To these unnamed Cyprians and Cyrenians belongs the credit of first preaching the gospel systematically to Gentiles."[22] It is doubtless this fact that Luke intended to bring into focus here. One can hardly resist the thought that perhaps Barnabas might have been among them. Both DeWelt and McGarvey were sure, however, that this preaching to Gentiles did not take place until after news of Peter's baptism of Cornelius had been circulated. DeWelt said: What prompted these Jews to do this, preach to the Gentiles? Could it not have been that the word of the works of Peter among the Gentiles reached these places; and, when this report came, they did not hesitate to take the gospel to the great Gentile center of Antioch?[23]The importance of Antioch as capital, in a sense, of Gentile Christianity, justifies a little further notice of it. ANTIOCHThe modern city of Antioch with a mere 30,000 inhabitants is not to be taken as anything like the Queen City of the East with its half a million souls at the time of events in this chapter. Situated astride the Orontes river, some twenty miles from the sea, where the river emerges from between the Lebanon and Taurus mountain ranges, it was a city "of great extent and remarkable beauty."[24] It was distinguished by two great colonnaded streets intersecting at the center and dividing Antioch into quadrants. "Octavian, Tiberius, Trajan ... and Hadrian adorned and equipped it with temple, theater, colonnade, circus, bath aqueduct, and all the architectural features and embellishments of a Roman metropolis."[25]The Seleucidae founded Antioch prior to 300 B.C., no less than four kings having a part in it, the royal residence of their dynasty having been constructed on an island in an artificial channel, the city itself occupying a larger island in the Orontes, but extending far beyond both banks, embracing also the slopes of precipitous Mount Silpius. It was the "third metropolis"[26] of the Roman Empire, "one of the eyes of Asia,"[27]and "one of the leading cities of the world."[28]Of particular interest to Christians is the quality of life which marked this mother city of Gentile Christianity. Just west of Antioch, Seleucus I had constructed the Groves of Daphne, wherein was the mighty temple of the Pythian Apollo. It was a center of vice, featuring the harlot-priestesses of Daphne and Apollo who on occasions engaged in public ceremonies "stripped of clothing."[29] Heathenism in its most vulgar and debasing forms dominated the life of the people. It is a credit to the strength and glory of Christianity that in such a city there came to be at one time more than "a hundred thousand members"[30] of the body of Christ. Chrysostom lived there; and a number of Gentile heresies began there, notably that of Arius. Such was the city where the Gentiles turned to the Lord and where the disciples were first called Christians. Mighty are the ways of the Lord. Preaching the Lord Jesus ... See under <a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/8/12" class="green-link">Acts 8:12</a> <a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/8/35" class="green-link">Acts 8:35</a>. Preaching the Lord Jesus was the same as preaching Christ, or preaching the things concerning the kingdom. [21] A. C. Hervey, The Pulpit Commentary, Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), p. 358. [22] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 833. [23] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 151. [24] F. N. Peloubet, Bible Dictionary (Chicago: The John C. Winston Company, 1925), p. 36. [25] Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 2, p. 70. [26] Farrar, as quoted by W. J. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 226. [27] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 73. [28] Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 149. [29] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 73. [30] Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 2, p. 149. Verse 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number that believed turned to the Lord.The fact is as obvious to us, after nineteen hundred years, as it was to Luke, that "the hand of the Lord was with them." Indeed, upon what other premise may the triumph of Christianity in a city like Antioch be explained? A great number that believed turned to the Lord ... The KJV in this place has "A great number believed, and turned to the Lord"; but the English Revised Version (1885) is a superior translation because it brings into focus the fact that believing and turning to the Lord are two different things. It is a gross error to read this as if it said, "A great number believed (turned to the Lord)." In the Greek text, "believing" is a participle, and "turned" is a verb in the past tense.[31] Those who were already believers "turned to the Lord." As McGarvey so well said it: Turning to the Lord is a different act from believing, and is subsequent to it. As in <a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/3/19" class="green-link">Acts 3:19</a>, where turning to the Lord follows repentance, the specific reference is to baptism, which is the turning act. Equivalent to the expression here is: "The Corinthians believed and were baptized" (<a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/18/8" class="green-link">Acts 18:8</a>).[32][31] The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 516. [32] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 224. Verse 22 And the report concerning them came to the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas as far as Antioch: who, when he was come, and had seen the grace of God, was glad; and he exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord: for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.Barnabas ... For comment on this remarkable man, see under <a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/4/36" class="green-link">Acts 4:36</a>. He exhorted them all ... This should have been expected of that man whose very name meant "Son of Exhortation." His power in the exercise of such a talent must truly have been remarkable. And they sent forth Barnabas ... This had the character of a formal mission from the church in Jerusalem. That the church should have sent a man with the character and disposition of Barnabas indicates that there was already in Jerusalem a strong attitude favoring the inclusion of Gentiles in the church. Regarding the chronology of these events, Hervey noted that: There is no clue to the length of time elapsed between the flight from persecution and the arrival in Antioch, except that Saul had had time to sojourn three years in Arabia, to come to Jerusalem, and from thence to go and settle in Tarsus, where Barnabas found him; thus leaving abundant time for Peter's operations in Judaea and Caesarea.[33]ENDNOTE: [33] A. S. Hervey, op. cit., p. 358. Verse 25 And he went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people; and that the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.When he had found him ... This seems to say that Barnabas might have had some difficulty in locating Saul; and, if the fact of Saul having been disinherited by his family (as supposed) had cut off his association with them, this could have complicated the problem of locating him. In any case, Barnabas succeeded in finding him and bringing him to Antioch. Some have speculated on the reasons which might have prompted Barnabas to search out Saul and introduce him at Antioch. Probably it was because the word of the Lord had revealed to Ananias that Saul would bear the Lord's name before the "Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel" (<a href="/bible/parallel/ACT/9/15" class="green-link">Acts 9:15</a>). The immediate mention of the "name" in the same context supports this view. The disciples were called Christians ... The importance of this makes it imperative to study more fully both the name "disciples" and the name "Christian," which replaced it. "Disciples" occurs 72 times in Matthew 44 times in Mark 38 times in Luke 77 times in John, and 30 times in Acts - 261 times in the first five books of the New Testament; but it is not used even once in the last 22 books of the New Testament. The significance of this is further emphasized by the fact that the apostle John, after using it 77 times in the gospel, never used it even once in the short epistles and Revelation. Following the book of Acts, no follower of the Lord was ever called a disciple. The conclusion is mandatory that "disciple" as a name for members of the body of Christ was countermanded and negated by the Holy Spirit. (It should be noted that this in no manner denies that all New Testament teaching regarding "disciples" and discipleship applies likewise to Christians. It was the name, not the doctrine, that was changed.) Among the reasons behind the dramatic change of names evident in this passage is the primary fact that the word "disciple" means "learner"; and although true in a sense that Christians must always be "learners," there is a vital and necessary sense in which Christians are "taught persons," in all vital elements of the holy faith. See <a href="/bible/parallel/JHN/6/44" class="green-link">John 6:44-45</a>; <a href="/bible/parallel/JER/31/31" class="green-link">Jeremiah 31:31-35</a>; <a href="/bible/parallel/2JN/1/12" class="green-link">2 John 1:12</a>; and <a href="/bible/parallel/ISA/54/13" class="green-link">Isaiah 54:13</a>. The hurtful notion that Christians are merely "trying to learn the truth" is antithetical to the passages cited. An apostle said that Christians "know the truth" (<a href="/bible/parallel/1JN/2/21" class="green-link">1 John 2:21</a>). Paul declared that Christians "believe and know the truth" (<a href="/bible/parallel/1TI/4/3" class="green-link">1 Timothy 4:3</a>); and this concept of the Christian's being in possession of "all truth" through the revelation of God to the apostles is denied by such a name as "disciples" or "learners." This alone was sufficient reason for God's repudiation of the name "disciples." As Kenneth Hoover, distinguished preacher of Benton, Kentucky, said: From ancient times to the present, the finite mind of man has wrestled with the infinite concept of God, the concept of truth. The halls of learning reverberate with a monotonous combination of postulates and abstractions about truth which sound good but mean nothing.[34]Hoover stressed that the truth has been revealed from God, in Christ, by the Spirit, through the apostles, and that "The truth is the gospel of Christ, the word of God."[35]Christians are commanded to love the truth, hear the truth, walk in the truth, obey the truth, and to "teach the truth in love." If they should be named merely "learners" or disciples, it would be incongruous. THE NAME "" The near-unanimous chorus of scholars and wise men shouting that this name was given in derision of the new faith is as shameful as it is amazing. We shall not use the space to record the names and comments of those affirming that "Christians" was a name given in derision, belittling the members of Christ as "goody-goodies," etc., the tragedy being that even some brethren have fallen in with such an "accepted" explanation! Even the Encyclopedia Britannica chimes in with "It was at Antioch that the term Christian’ was first given to converts to the new faith, as some maintain, in derision."[36] But where, in God’s holy name, is there any intimation of such a thing, either in the word of God or any dependable history? Hervey emphatically declared, and it is true, that “There is no evidence of its having been given in derision."[37]Furthermore, if the name “Christian” was given in derision of the faith by the enemies of the gospel, whatever became of that everlasting “new name” which the mouth of God named upon his children? I. God promised that he himself would give his people a new name. He promised that it would be given at a time when “the Gentiles and kings” had seen his “righteousness” (Isaiah 62:2). It was not to be a name which enemies would give, for God said, “I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 56:5). It was not to be a name which would arise beyond the fellowship of God’s people; but, as the Lord said, “Even unto them will I give in my house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters” (Isaiah 56:5). If God made good on that promise, the name was given in his house and within his walls; and that cannot mean in the ranks of the despisers of his truth. Moreover, it was to be “a new name” (Isaiah 62:2), and a name “which the mouth of the Lord” would name. II. Significance of the name’s being “new.” If “disciples” had continued to be the name of God’s followers, there would have been nothing new in such a designation, because the Pharisees and John the Baptist also had “disciples.” Implicit in the new name was the teaching that Christianity was never to be confused with Judaism, or any of the sects of the Jews, all of which had their “disciples,” the very name being indicative of the Jewish connection. III. This is the only name specifically commanded by an apostle as the one in which the Lord’s people should “glorify God” (1 Peter 4:16). And how, it may be asked, does the name “Christian” worn by God’s people glorify the Father in heaven? This is done by its emphasis upon the name of Christ, the name literally meaning “of Christ.” Herein also appears the utter impossibility of such a name having been given by the instigation of Satan. It is contrary to the nature of Satan to suppose for even a moment that the evil one would have concocted a name with so much of Christ in it. People who can really believe that Satan invented and instigated this name might also very well believe that the devil invented the Lord’s Supper. IV. The contrast between the New Testament handling of the name “Christian,” as distinguished from many designations applied to the followers of the Lamb in the New Testament, stresses the uniqueness of the term “Christian.” For example, the Holy Spirit referred to the Lord’s followers as (1) the called of God (Romans 1:6 Romans 8:28), (2) sons of God (Romans 8:14), (3) children of God (Romans 8:16), (4) the sanctified (1 Corinthians 1:2), (5) the faithful in Christ (Ephesians 1:1), (6) servants of Christ (Philippians 1:1), (7) the elect of God (1 Peter 1:1), (8) God’s elect (Colossians 3:12; Titus 1:1), (9) saints in Christ, the term “saints” being used 50 times in the epistles (10) brethren, this designation being used 132 times in the epistles, and (11) simply “the church,” as used 85 times. Nevertheless, it was the name “Christian” which above all others came to be the historical designation of the brethren. This was the only name an apostle commanded the saints to wear (1 Peter 4:16), the only name advocated before kings (Acts 26:28), and the only name consciously designated by an inspired author of a New Testament book as a replacement for “disciples,” as in Acts 11:26. V. Finally, the events leading to the giving of this new name were ordered, not on earth, but from heaven. First, a “name bearer” was chosen of God and converted in Acts 9; next the Gentiles were made participants in the blessings of the faith, upon the same terms as Jews, this being accomplished by a whole series of supernatural occurrences leading to the conversion of Cornelius and his house in Acts 10; and then in Acts 11, as soon as the first great Gentile church had been assembled at Antioch, a man full of the Holy Spirit went and called the “name-bearer” from Tarsus, the same line recording the fact that the disciples were called “Christians” first at Antioch. From this, the conclusion may not be denied that Paul himself announced this name within the church at Antioch, the inspired apostle being God’s spokesman. [34] Kenneth Hoover, Minister, Church of Christ, Benton, Kentucky, a private manuscript, 1975. [35] Ibid. [36] Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 2, p. 149. [37] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 359. Verse 27 Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be a great famine over all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius.Prophets … There were an undetermined number of prophets in the first age of the church, the same ranking next in authority to the apostles themselves (1 Corinthians 12:28), presumably having come in possession of their gift through the laying on of apostolic hands. They are mentioned again by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:28, also in Ephesians 2:20 Ephesians 4:11. Agabus … is again mentioned in Acts 21:10. The event of his prophesying the famine in the reign of Claudius is helpful in fixing the chronology of the events here narrated. “Claudius reigned from A.D. 41-54."[38] He is the only emperor to have been named twice in the New Testament, here and in Acts 18:2; the latter instance referring to his expulsion of the Jews from Rome. Lewis is of the opinion that he is also alluded to inActs 17:7.[39]A man of great promise at first, Claudius degenerated in office, outraging his subjects by a marriage to his own niece,[40] the shameless Agrippina, whose son Nero succeeded Claudius when the latter was poisoned, according to Tacitus, by Agrippina. The famine mentioned here which was prophesied by Agabus is also mentioned by Josephus as occurring in 44-48 A.D., during which period he relates how “Queen Helena purchased and imported grain and figs to the distressed in Jerusalem.[41]Luke’s respectful and even friendly mention of the emperor makes it certain that at the time Luke and Acts were written, there had not been any outbreak of persecution of the Christians by Rome, meaning that they were written in the early 60’s, at the very latest; for the quinquennium of Nero lasted until A.D. 59. [38] Jack P. Lewis, Historical Backgrounds of Bible History (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1971), p. 144. [39] Ibid. [40] Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 5, p. 781. [41] Jack P. Lewis, op. cit., p. 144. Verse 29 And the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judaea: which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.To send relief … What a commendable thing it was that the Gentile converts to Christianity, so long hated and despised by Jews, should have responded so nobly to the distress of their fellow Christians in Jerusalem and environs. Every Christian participated “according to his ability” in making up the bounty for their relief. All over the world today, Christians still respond in the same manner to such disasters as that ancient famine. This writer remembers being at Skillman Avenue Church of Christ in Dallas, Texas, once after Hurricane “Carla” had wrought such extensive destruction; and the mountain of supplies that had been gathered at that church overflowed the great edifice and was temporarily stored on the parking lot until a whole fleet of trucks was employed for its distribution. The pseudocon “discovered” in these verses is this: Galatians 2:1 speaks of Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem as taking place fourteen years after his first, whereas this visit could not be above four or five years after.[42]The visit in Galatians 2:1, however, was by “revelation,” as was also his first visit; and, when it is understood that Paul was there speaking of a certain class of visits, all difficulties disappear. Moreover, this visit was very brief, not a visit at all in the sense the others were; and besides, there is no mention of their seeing any of the apostles on this visit, that being the big thing in view on both other trips. For whatever reason, and we are certain there was a reason, Paul simply did not count this visit here as his “second” journey to Jerusalem. The elders … This is the first mention of elders of the church in the New Testament. That these men were recognized as the duly appointed governors of the Lord’s church is implicit in the fact that Barnabas and Saul gave the alms they brought, not to the apostles, but to the elders. The qualifications of elders are given by Paul in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, along with the commandment to “ordain elders in every city.” ENDNOTE: [42] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 360

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Acts Chapter 111. State the report that came to brethren in Judea. 2. Who are meant by they of the circumcision verse 2 ? 3. Tell what they did with Peter when he arrived. 4. What special accusation did they make ? 5. Did he deny it? 6. How much of his experience did he relate ? 7. In what manner did he relate it? 8. In what city had he been staying? 9. What was he doing when called ? 10. Did he see a sheet let down? 11. In what form was the object? 12. To what fact do the “ 4 corners” here allude ? 13. What was seen in the vessel? 14. Tell what the voice said ? 15. Whose voice was this ? 16. Why did Peter refuse to eat ? 17. At this what did the voice notify Peter? 18. How often did this happen ? 19. Who were on the scene then? 20. Who next spoke to Peter? 21. State what he was assured of. 22. How many men went with him? 23. Of what nationality were they? 24. What was Peter to tell Cornelius? 25. For what purpose were they to be told? 26. What happened as he began to speak? 27. When had this happened before? 28. Then what did Peter remember ? 29. Compare verse 16 with Matt. 3: 11. 30. What did Peter here call this Holy Ghost? 31. How might he have withstood God? 32. State the effect of this speech on the brethren. 33. What scattered the brethren ? 34. Who was Stephen? 35. To whom did the disciples preach the word ? 36. State the success of the preaching. 37. What news came to the church at Jerusalem? 38. Then whom did they send and where? 39. State the exhortation he gave the brethren. 40. What kind of man was he ? 41. State the influence he had on the people. 42. To what place did Barnabas and Saul go? 43. State the length of their protracted meeting here. 44. What had its beginning at Antioch? 45. Tell what special class of men now came to Jerusalem. 46. Give the subject of their prophecy. 47. In whose days was it fulfilled ? 48. This caused the disciples to do what? 49. By whose hands did they send the money. 50. To whom did they send it ?

Acts 11:1

1 Act 11:1. Much of this chapter is a rehearsal of the preceding one, and I shall try to avoid unnecessary repetition of the comments. The brethren around Jerusalem heard the news of the conversion of the Gentiles before Peter returned.

Acts 11:2

2Act 11:2. When Peter got back to Jerusalem, they of the circumcism, meaning the Jews, had a contention with him.

Acts 11:3

3Act 11:3. It was objectionable to them for Peter to have associated with the Gentiles, but it was made worse for him to eat with them. In those days it was regarded as one of the strongest signs of social intimacy, to sit down together with others at a meal. (See 1 Corinthians 5:11.) See the notes at Matthew 9:11 about eating with others.

Acts 11:4-11

1Act 11:4-11. See the notes on chapter 10:9-18.

Acts 11:12

2Act 11:12. These six brethren are the “certain brethren” of chapter 10:23. They were taken along to be witnesses of the events in the household of Cornelius. Peter referred to them as a verification of what he was reporting.

Acts 11:13-14

4Acts 11:13-14. See the comments on chapter 10:30-33.

Acts 11:15

5Acts 11:15. See notes on chapter 10:44, 45. Also note that Peter says the Holy Ghost fell on them as it did on the apostles at the beginning. As to what “measure” it was that was given them, see the comments at chapter 4:31.

Acts 11:16

6Acts 11:16. Then is an adverb of time and refers to the moment when the Holy Ghost fell. That event reminded Peter of what John said in Matthew 3:11. See the comments on that verse as to why Peter does not mention the baptism of fire.

Acts 11:17

7Acts 11:17. Peter again calls the gift received by them and the Gentiles a like gift. Had he even hesitated about baptizing these Gentiles he would have been resisting God, for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost on them was to show that they were acceptable to God upon obedience to the Gospel ordinance.

Acts 11:18

8Acts 11:18. The brethren showed the right spirit when Peter presented the facts to them. They did not merely give a reluctant agreement, but gave God the glory for what he had bestowed on the Gentiles. Granted repentance unto life means God gave the Gentiles the chance to repent (reform their lives), with the promise of forgiveness of sins.

Acts 11:19

9Acts 11:19. This subject is mentioned in chapter 8:1, 4, but the places are not named in that passage. To the Jews only. That was because they had left Jerusalem before the Gentiles had been accepted into the Gospel work.

Acts 11:20

0Acts 11:20. The Grecians were Jews who spoke the Greek language.

Acts 11:21

1Act 11:21. The Lord blessed the labors of these men by causing their work to be received. The result was that a great number became disciples.

Acts 11:22

2Act 11:22. The church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch (in Syria), because the scattered disciples had carried the Gospel message as far as to that city.

Acts 11:23

3Act 11:23. The mission of Barnabas was to encourage the new converts, also to exhort them regarding their responsibility. Purpose of heart denotes a service into which one puts his whole heart.

Acts 11:24

4Acts 11:24. Full of the Holy Ghost. (See the notes at chapter 4:31.) The work and influence of Barnabas resulted in many more conversions.

Acts 11:25

5Acts 11:25. The last account we had of Saul was when the brethren helped him get started towards this town of Tarsus (chapter 9:30). The work at Antioch was growing in numbers and influence, and Barnabas believed that the help of Saul would be beneficial, hence he went to Tarsus to find him.

Acts 11:26

6Acts 11:26. These two men spent a year with the church, teaching them their duties that follow induction into the Lord’s service. Called Christians. The second word is defined in the lexicon, “a follower of Christ,” hence it is not likely that enemies would attach that title to them as in disrespect, for the disciples themselves claimed to be that, and rejoiced in the thought of being known by that name. The first word is from , and Thayer defines it at this place, “to assume or take to one’s self a name from one’s public business.” That is exactly what was done in this case, for the (religious) business of the disciples was to work for Christ which made the name Christian an appro-prite one for them.

Acts 11:27

7Acts 11:27. Among the miraculous gifts bestowed upon the disciples in the early period of the church was that of prophesying. Peter cited the prediction of it in his reference to Joel’s writings, in chapter 2:17.

Acts 11:28

8Acts 11:28. This famine is verified by Josephus; Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 2, Section 5. I shall quote only one sentence from his lengthy paragraph: “Whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal.” The context shows Josephus was writing of the days of Claudius Caesar. All the world was a common phrase to refer to the Roman Empire.

Acts 11:29

9Acts 11:29. The disciples at Antioch were in better circumstances than those in Judea, and concluded to send them some relief. This was done on the basis of voluntary contributions, and the giving was according to each man’s ability. That is the principle on which all giving is to be done by Christians (1 Corinthians 16:2).

Acts 11:30

0Acts 11:30. Sent it to the elders. We learned at chapter 6:2 that the deacons are the ones whose work is to distribute the funds for the necessities of life. That was always true, but the work of those officials, like everything else pertaining to the affairs of the church, is under the supervision of the elders.