Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible · Acts Chapter 10

Acts 10:1. Cornelius, a centurion, &c.— A Roman cohort or band was a company of soldiers commanded by a tribune, consisting generally of about a thousand. It is probable that this was called the Italian cohort, because most of the soldiers belonging to it were Italians. It might perhaps be the life-guard of the Roman governor, who generally resided in this most splendid and celebrated city of Caesarea. Cornelius was a centurion, or captain of one hundred soldiers in this cohort. See John 18:3.

return to '

Acts 10:2. A devout man, &c.— Cornelius had distinguished himself by his great virtue, piety, and charity, and was well prepared for the reception of the gospel, as the proselytes of the gate were in general above all sorts of people. The ceremonial law most grievously entangled the minds of the Jews; and, by means of their strong prejudices, their attachment to it degenerated into the greatest superstition. The idolatrous Gentiles, by their ignorance and wickedness, which were exceedingly supported by their idolatry, were with much difficulty brought to embrace Christianity; whereas the devout Gentiles had cast off idolatry, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, had not submitted to the ceremonial part of the Jewish law. Thus were they prepared in general; but the uncommon virtues and great piety of Cornelius rendered him a proper person to begin with, among that well-disposed set of people. He excelled in piety towards God, and benevolence towards mankind, even to men of different sects, without confining his charity to persons of his own sentiment and party; for he is said to have given much alms to the people, especially, no doubt, to the Jews, to whom he was in some measure attached; as well as to have prayed to God alway, and especially at those hours of the day at which the Jews used to offer up their prayers. The great God, the wise and benevolent governor of the world, in pitching upon a person who was through grace so pious in himself, and so charitable to the Jews, made the gradationas gentle as possible; and began with one of the fittest persons in the world, when he was about to unite Jew and Gentile into one church and body, through Jesus Christ, the prince of peace: it was indeed with great difficulty that the Jewish converts were brought to bear with the admission of one uncircumcised Gentile; but if they could bear with any, they must own, that one of Cornelius's virtue and charity was the most proper person among all the Gentiles: and when they came to reflect upon it, surely they could not help admiring the divine condescension, in stooping to their prejudices, and so graciously bearing with their infirmities.

return to '

Acts 10:3. About the ninth hour of the day— That is, about three o'clock in the afternoon, at the time of theevening sacrifice. See Daniel 9:21; Daniel 9:27. Perhaps Cornelius might be praying for the coming of the kingdom of the Messiah, when the Gentiles were to be accepted as the people of God; for there was then a general expectation that this kingdom would appear. In Act 10:31 his particular prayer, which he was offering up at that time, is said to have been heard.

return to '

Acts 10:4. What is it, Lord— That is, "Protect me from all danger, and let me know the meaning of this vision." The expression thy prayers, &c. are come up for a memorial, has reference to the incense offered under the law, which ascended in fumes, when burned; and implies that the prayers and alms of Cornelius were more grateful than the stream of burnt incense, or of the most costly sacrifice which he could have offered.

return to '

Acts 10:9. On the morrow, &c.— As the messengers of Cornelius were upon the road, and just entering the town, St. Peter went up to the top of the house, to spend some time in retirement and devotion; for the Jews had stated hours of prayer in the day, namely, the times of the morning and evening sacrifices. See on Ch. Acts 3:1. The more devout among them added a third, which was about noon, and which they called "the time of the great meat-offering." See Psalms 55:17. Daniel 6:10. Whether St. Peter was induced by this or by some other reason to retire for prayer at this time, it seems at least to have been customary, in the first ages of the Christian church, to offer up their daily prayers at the third, the sixth, and the ninth hours. We have before observed, that in the Eastern countries, the roofs of the houses were commonly flat; and the flat roofs, or some of the upper parts of the houses, were the usual places for devout retirement, where the Jews were accustomed to pray with their faces towards the temple of Jerusalem. See 1 Kings 8:29-30; 1 Kings 8:66. Psalms 138:2. Jon 2:4 and the note on Mark 2:4.

return to '

Acts 10:10. Would have eaten— "Would have taken a little refreshment" seems the proper import of the word γευσασθαι . The word γευσασθαι, rendered trance, properly signifies such a rapture of mind, as gives the person who falls into it a look of astonishment, and renders him insensible to external objects; while, in the mean time, his whole soul is agitated in an extraordinary manner, with some striking scenes which pass before it and take up all the attention.

return to '

Acts 10:11. And a certain vessel, &c.— And something descending in the form of a great sheet. As we do not in English call sheets vessels, the general word here used, more properly answers to the word Σκευος, concerning which, see on chap. Acts 9:15. We have no word in our language exactly answering to it. The other word οθονη signifies any large piece of linen, in which things are wrapped; and seems to have been used as an emblem of the gospel, which extends to all nations of m

return to '

Acts 10:13. Rise, Peter; kill, and eat— This appears a general intimation that the Jewish Christians were by the gospel absolved from the ceremonial law, in which the distinction between clean and unclean meats made so considerable a part. L'Enfant, and some other critics, have observed, that the Jews looked on unclean animals as images of the Gentiles; which, if it were the case, renders this emblematical interpretation peculiarly suitable. See particularly the note on Leviticus 11:2.

return to '

Acts 10:15. What God hath cleansed, &c.— The single proposition is, "That which God hath cleansed, is notcommon or impure." But no one who reads this history, can doubt of its having this double sense; first, that the distinction between clean and unclean meats was to be abolished: secondly, that the Gentiles were to be called into the church of Christ. Here then the true sense of this passage is not one, but two; and yet the intention or meaning is not on this account the least obscured, or lost, or rendered unintelligible.

return to '

Acts 10:16. This was done thrice— In order to confirm the matter: see Genesis 41:32.—Before we proceed in the history, it may not be amiss to reflect upon the propriety and decorum with which things were managed in erecting Christ's spiritual kingdom. The Lord Jesus Christ himself appeared to Saul, and granted the knowledge of the gospel to him by immediate revelation, because he was to be an apostle; but Cornelius was admonished by an angel to send for St. Peter, and hear him preach the Christian doctrine, because he was to open the door of faith to the Gentiles; and Cornelius was not designed for so high an office in the Christian church as Saul. Again, the angel who appeared to Cornelius, was not sent to preach the gospel to him, but only to order him to send for an apostle, who was one of the witnesses chosen of God to attest the truth of Christ's life, death, resurrection, and miracles, and upon those facts to found the Christian doctrine. And farther, St. Peter did not go of himself, and attempt the conversion of the uncircumcised Gentiles, even though the body of the Jews in Palestine who would embrace the gospel, were in general gathered in. If he had done so, he would have met with a more severe rebuke from the zealous Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, and could not have offered half so much for his own vindication: but as he did not go till he was sent for, and that in so extraordinary a manner, he maintained the apostolic dignity, and could allege the determination of heaven in his favour. And, finally, we may observe, that an angel was sent to Cornelius; but the Spirit of God himself spoke to St. Peter; not only as he bore a higher character in the church than Cornelius was to bear, but as he was to execute, a new and most extraordinary commission; for such that of beginning to call in the uncircumcised Gentiles certainly was.

return to '

Acts 10:20. Doubting nothing— "Without any hesitation or scruple on account of the messengers being Gentiles, and coming from one of the same denomination; for I have shewn you, that the great ceremonial distinction between Jew and Gentile, clean and unclean, is now to be abolished." See Matthew 21:21.Mark 11:23; Mark 11:23.Romans 4:20; Romans 4:20. James 1:6.

return to '

Acts 10:22. To hear words of thee— To hear thee discourse. Heylin. "To receive orders and instructions from thee." Benson.

return to '

Acts 10:23. And lodged them— Or hospitably entertained them that night, εξενισε . The next day St. Peter went along with them, and six Jewish Christians from Joppa accompanied him. It is probable that the apostle himself desired them to go along with him, that they might be witnesses of what happened, as this was an affair in which some difficulties might arise, and some censure be incurred from the Jewish converts, and such as were not apprised of his divine direction. How pleasing a mixture of prudence and humility!—sufficient to teach us, on all proper occasions, to express at once a becoming deference to our brethren, and a prudent caution in our own best intended actions; that even our good may not be evil spoken of, when it lies in our power to prevent it. See Romans 14:16.

return to '

Acts 10:29. I ask therefore, &c.— St. Peter knew this by revelation, and by the messengers who were sent from Cornelius; but he puts him on giving the account, that the company might be more fully informed, and Cornelius himself awakened and impressed by the narration; the repetition of which, even as we here read it, gives great dignity and spirit to St. Peter's succeeding discourse.

return to '

Acts 10:31. Thy prayer is heard, &c.— The case of Cornelius before St. Peter was sent to him, was, I have no doubt, the case of many, who were far from being in any degree Jewish proselytes, and had never heard of the Jews and their religion; as it was most certainly the case of many before the peculiarities of Judaism existed, and even before the institution of the Abrahamic covenant; though Cornelius was one of the most eminent for piety of these persons. This history evidently proves, that God would sooner send an angel to direct pious and upright persons to the knowledge of the gospel, than suffer them to perish by ignorance of it. But I refer my readers to my annotations on the epistle to the Romans for the fullexplanation of my sentiments, on the salvation of the pious heathen by the righteousness which is of God by faith. God forbid, however, that I should intimate, that any persons like Cornelius, may be found among those whoreject Christianity, when offered to them in its full evidence. But see the next note.

return to '

Acts 10:38. How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth— It was a proverb among the Jews, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? John 1:46. And yet the apostles very frequently call our Lord by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. They seemed to have mentioned this as one circumstance of his humiliation; and yet they shewed that this very Jesus of Nazareth, of whom the Jews had so contemptible an opinion, and whom theyhad treated so cruelly and ignominiously, was nevertheless the Son of God, and attested to be such in a most remarkable manner; that to him angels bow, and all nature is in subjection: and indeed if we set the predictions of the prophets, the great expectations which were raised of him before his coming, the miracles which he wrought, his wondrous exaltation after leaving our world, and the supernatural gifts and powers which he conferred on his apostles and the primitive Christians;—if we set all these against his poverty, contempt, and sufferings, the offence of the cross will cease, and the ignominy of his low estate of humiliation will vanish away.

return to '

Acts 10:41. Not to all the people, &c.— It has frequently been asked, Why Christ did not shew himself to all the people, but to his disciples only? Now it may be sufficient to reply, that where there are witnesses enough, no judge or jury complains for want of more; and therefore, if the witnesses that we have for the resurrection are sufficient, it is no objection that we have not others, or more. If three credible men attest a will, which are asmany as the law requires, would any body ask why all the town were not called to sign their names to it? But it may be objected, why were these witnesses called and chosen out? Why, for this reason, that they might be good ones. Does not every wise man choose proper witnesses to his deed? And does not a good choice of witnesses give strength to every deed? How comes it to pass then, that the very thing which shuts out all suspicion in other cases, should in this be of all others the most suspicious thing itself? What reason there is for the Jews to make any complaints, may be judged from the evidence already offered concerning the resurrection: Christ suffered openly in their sight, and they were so well apprized of his prediction, that they set a guard on his sepulchre; every soldier was to them a witness of his resurrection, of their own choosing. After this, they had not one apostle only, but all the apostles, and many other witnesses with them: the apostles testified the resurrection not only to the people, but to the elders assembled in senate: to support their evidence, they worked miracles openly in the name of Christ: these people therefore have the least reason to complain, and have had of all others the fullest evidence, and in some respects such as none but themselves could have; for they only were the keepers of the sepulchre. But the argument goes further. It is said, that Jesus was sent with a special commission to the Jews, that he was their Messias: and as his resurrection was his main credential, he ought to have appeared publicly to the rulers of the Jews after his resurrection; that in doing otherwise, he acted like an ambassador pretending authority from his prince, but refusing to shew his letters of credence. In reply to this objection, it should be observed, that, by the accounts we have of the Lord Jesus, it appears he had two distinct offices respecting the present point; one, as the Messias particularly promised to the Jews; another, as he was to be the great high priest of the world. With respect to the first office, the apostle speaks, Heb 3:1 and he speaks of himself, Matthew 15:24. I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Christ continued in the discharge of this office during the time of his natural human life, till he was finally rejected by the Jews: and it is observable, that the last time he spoke to the Jews, according to St. Matthew's account, he solemnly took leave of them, and closed his commission in respect to his presence with them in the flesh. He had been long among them publishing glad things; but when all his preaching, all his miracles, had proved in vain, the last thing he did was to denounce the woes which they had brought upon themselves. Matthew 23:0 recites these woes, and at the end of them Christ takes this passionate leave of Jerusalem, "Ye shall not see me from henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." It is remarkable, thatthis passage, which is recorded by Matthew and Luke twice over, is determined by the circumstances to refer to the near approach of his own death, and the extreme hatred of the Jews to him; and therefore those words, Ye shall not see me henceforth, are to be dated from the time of his death, and manifestly point out the end of his mission to them. From making this declaration, as it stands in St. Matthew, his discourses are to his disciples, as they chiefly relate to the miserable condition of the Jews, which was now decreed, and soon to be accomplished. Let us now ask, whether in this state of things any farther credentials of Christ's commission to the Jews, could be demanded or expected? He was rejected, his commission was determined, and with it the fate of the nation was determined also; what use then of more credentials? As to appearing to them after his resurrection, he could not do it consistently with his own prediction, Ye shall see me no more, &c. The Jews, as a nation, were not in the disposition to receive him after the resurrection, nor are they in it yet. The resurrection was the foundation of Christ's new commission, as it respected the gospel, which extended to all the world. This prerogative the Jews had under this commission, that the gospel was every where first offered to them. Since then, this commission, of which the resurrection was the foundation, extended to all the world alike. What ground then is there to demand special and particular evidence to the Jews? The emperor and senate of Rome were a much more considerable part of the world than the chief priests and the synagogue; why is it not then objected, that Christ did not shew himself to Tiberius and his senate? And since all men have an equal right in this case, why may not the same demand be made for every country? nay, for every age? and then we may bring the question nearer home, and ask why Christ did not appear in king George's reign? The observation already made upon the resurrection, naturally leads to another, which will help to account for the nature of the evidence that we have on this great point. As the resurrection was the opening of a new commission, in which all the world had an interest; so the grand concern was to have a proper evidence to establish this truth, and which should be of equal weight to all. This did not depend upon the satisfaction given to private persons, whether they were magistrates or not magistrates, but upon the conviction of those whose office it was to bear testimony to this truth. In this sense, the apostles were chosen to be witnesses of the resurrection, because they were chosen to bear testimony to it in the world, and not only because they were admitted to see Christ after his resurrection; for the fact is otherwise. The gospel, indeed, concerned to shew the evidence on which the faith of the world was to rest, is very particular in setting forth the ocular demonstration which the apostles had of the resurrection, and mentions others who saw Christ after his resurrection only in course, and as the thread of the history led to it: but yet it is certain, that there were many others who had this satisfaction as well as the apostles; so that it is a mistake to infer from the passage before us, that a few only were chosen to see Christ after he came from the grave. The truth of the case is this, that out of those who saw him, some were chosen to bear testimony to the world, and for that reason had the fullest demonstration of the truth, that they might be the better able to give satisfaction to others: and what was there in this conduct to complain of? What to raise any jealousy or suspicion? To allege the meanness of the witnesses as an objection, is very weak; for men may be good witnesses without having great estates, and be able to report what they see with their eyes without being philosophers. As far then as the truth of the resurrection depended on the evidence of sense, the apostles were duly qualified. Did their meanness stand in the way of evidence, which arose from the great powers with which they were endued from above? Consider their natural and supernatural qualifications, they were in everyrespect proper witnesses: take these qualifications together, and they were witnesses without exception. It is indeed said, that they were interested in the affair. Would we then have evidence from unbelievers? A witness, who does not believe the truth of what he affirms, is a cheat. Nobody therefore could be an evidence of the resurrection but a believer, and such a one is said to be interested. But this is an absurd objection, because it is an objection to every honest witness that ever lived; for every honest witness believes the truth of what he says. If the objection is intended to charge the apostles with views or hopes of temporal advantage, it is built upon an utter ignorance of the history of the church. It may be demonstrated, that if Jesus had shewed himself to his enemies, and to all the people, these appearances, instead of putting his resurrection beyond doubt, would rather have weakened the evidence of it in after ages, and so would have been of infinite detriment to mankind: for upon the supposition that our Lord had shewed himself openly, either his enemies, yielding to the evidences of their senses, would have believed his resurrection, or, resisting that evidence, they would have rejected it altogether. To begin with the latter supposition: such of our Lord's enemies as then resisted the evidence of their senses, must have justified their unbeliefby affirming, that the man who appeared to them was not Jesus, but an impostor who personated him. The evidence of the fact would therefore have gained nothing by such public appearance, because the generality of the Jews were not capable of passing a judgment upon the falsehood which Christ's enemies must have made use of to support the denial of his resurrection. Being unacquainted with Jesus, they could not certainly tell whether he was really the person whom the Romans had crucified. His apostles, who knew his stature, shape, air, voice, and manner, were the only proper persons by whose determination the point in dispute could be decided. Wherefore, notwithstanding our Lord had appeared to all the people, the whole stress of the evidence, in case of any doubt or objection, must have relied on the testimony of the very persons who bear witness to it now, and on whose testimony the world has believed it. So that instead of gaining any additional evidence by Jesus's shewing himself publicly to all the people, we should have had nothing to trust to but the testimony of his disciples, and that clogged with this incumbrance, that his resurrection was denied by many to whom he appeared. But, in the second place, it may be fancied, that, on supposition that our Lord rose from the dead, the whole people of the Jews must have believed, if he had shewed himself publicly. To this supposition it may be replied, that the greatest part of our Lord's enemies cannot be supposed to have been so well acquainted with his person, as to have beenable to know him again with certainty; for which reason, though he had shewed himself to them, even their belief of his resurrection must have depended on the testimony of his disciples and friends. If so, it is not very probable that his appearing publicly would have had any great influence on the Jews. But supposing the Jewish nation in general should have been converted by his appearance, and have become his disciples, what advantage would the cause of Christianity have reaped from this effect? Would the evidence of theresurrectionhavebecometherebyunquestionable?Orwouldmoderninfidelshave been better disposed to believe it? By no means. The truth is, the objections against his resurrection would have been tenfold more numerous and forcible than they are at present: for would not the whole have been called a state trick, a Jewish fable, a mere political contrivance, to patch up their broken credit after so much talk of a Messiah who was to come at that time? Besides, should we not have been told, that the government being engaged in a plot, a fraud of this kind might easily have been carried on, because it suited with the prejudices of the people; and because the few, who had the sagacity to detect the fraud, had no opportunity to examine into it? Or if they did examine and detect the fraud, they durst not make a discovery? And to conclude, would not the very proofs which now are sufficient to attest this fact, have been buried in oblivion, and been entirely lost, for want of that opposition which the Jews themselves made to it, and which was the occasion of their being recorded in the Scripture?

return to '

Acts 10:42. It is he which was ordained of God— Pointed out, and determined:— ωρισμενος . This was declaring, in the strongest terms, how entirely their happiness depended on a timely and humble subjection to him who was to be their final judge.

return to '

Acts 10:43. To him give all the prophets witness,— It is observable, that in this discourse to an audience of Gentiles, the apostle first mentions Christ's person, miracles, and resurrection, and then contents himself with telling them in the general, that there were many prophets in former ages who bore witness to him, without entering into a particular enumeration of their predictions. Further, we do not read of St. Peter's working any miracle on this great occasion. The preceding testimony of the angel, and the descent of the Holy Spirit in his miraculous gifts, while he was speaking to them, were sufficient proofs, both of the gospel, and of St. Peter's being an authorized interpreter of it. See the note on Luke 24:27.

return to '

Acts 10:44. The Holy Ghost fell on all them, &c.— Probably this effusion of the Holy Spirit was attended with a glory, as when it fell upon the apostles and their company on the famous day of Pentecost: and it is most likely, that a glory always attended the immediate effusion of the Spirit, from the day of Pentecost to the calling of the idolatrous Gentiles. Thus wasthe Spirit poured down upon Cornelius and his friends, as upon the apostles, and the hundred and twenty; and was not communicated by the laying on of the hands of the apostles, as it had been to the Jewish and Samaritan converts: and the reason why God communicated the Holy Spirit in this most honourable manner to the first fruits of the devout Gentiles, was to remove the prejudices of the Jewish Christians, and to make way for their cheerfully receiving the devout Gentiles into the Christian church, and to all its privileges. Dr. Lightfoot observes, that one important effect of this descent of the Holy Spirit upon them, was, that hereby they were enabled to understand the Hebrew language; and so had an opportunity of acquainting themselves with the prophesies of the Old Testament. See Acts 10:46.

return to '

Acts 10:47. Can any man forbid water, &c.— That is, according to Whitby and Doddridge, "Who can forbid that water should be brought?" In which view of the clause one would obviously conclude, that they were baptized by pouring water upon them, rather than byplunging them in it. "Can any man, how strongly soever he might formerly be prejudiced against such a thing, any longer hesitate, or offer one just reason, why these uncircumcised Gentiles should not be baptized with water, seeing theyhave received the baptism of the HolySpirit, in the same honourable manner that we, Christ's apostles and first converts, have received it: Καθως και ημεις, even as we?" It deserves to be remarked,that of all the institutions of our holy religion, that of water baptism was least proper to be called in question; being most invincibly established by the practice both of St. Peter and St. Paul. The former finding that the houshold of Cornelius had received the Holy Ghost, regards it as a certain direction for him to admit them into the church of Christ; which he does by the initiatory rite of water baptism. St. Paul, in his travels through the Lesser Asia, finding some of the Jewish converts who had never heard of the Holy Ghost, and on inquiry understanding thatthey had only been baptized by water unto John's baptism, thought fit to baptize them with water in the name of the Lord Jesus; that is to say, to admit them into the church: and then laying hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, &c. See ch. Acts 19:4-6. Yet notwithstanding these two memorable transactions, there is a people who reject water baptism, pretending that water baptism is John's baptism, and only a type of baptism by the Holy Ghost, or by fire: so that when this last came in use, the former ceased, and was abolished. In the two histories, given above, however, these fancies are fully reproved, and in such a manner, as if the histories had been recorded for no other purpose; for in the adventure of St. Paul, the water baptism of Jesus is expressly distinguished from the water baptism of John; and in that of St. Peter it appears, that water baptism was used for an admittance into the church of Christ, even after the administration of baptism by fire, or the communicated power of the Holy Ghost. St. Peter does not say, "They have the baptism of the Spirit, therefore they do not need baptism with water;" but just the contrary, "They have received the Spirit, therefore baptize them with water." Indeed this question were easily decided, if we would take the plain word of God for our rule. Either men have received the Holy Ghost or not; if they have not, Repent, saith God, and be baptised, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: if they are already baptized with the Holy Ghost, then, Who can forbid water? We may just observe further, that these two heads of the missions to the two great divisions of mankind, the Jews and Gentiles, here acted in each other's provinces—Peter, the apostle of the Jews, administering baptism to the Gentile household of Cornelius; and Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, administering the same rite to the Jewish converts: and why was this crossing of hands, but to obviate that simple evasion, that water baptism was only partial and temporary.

return to '