PETER'S APOLOGIA

'And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the

Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2. And when Peter was come

up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

3. Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with

them. 4. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and

expounded it by order unto them, saying, 5. I was in the city of Joppa

praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as

it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it

came even to me: 6. Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I

considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts,

and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 7. And I heard a voice

saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay, and eat. 8. But I said, Not so,

Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my

mouth. 9. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath

cleansed, that call not thou common. 10. And this was done three times:

and all were drawn up again into heaven. 11. And, behold, immediately

there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from

Caesarea unto me. 12. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing

doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered

into the man's house: 13. And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in

his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call

for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14. Who shall tell thee words,

whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 15. And as I began to

speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16. Then

remembered I the word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed

baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17.

Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as He did unto us, who

believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand

God? 18. When they heard these things, they held their peace, and

glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted

repentance unto life.'--ACTS xi. 1-18.

Peter's action in regard to Cornelius precipitated a controversy which

was bound to come if the Church was to be anything more than a Jewish

sect. It brought to light the first tendency to form a party in the

Church. 'They... of the circumcision' were probably 'certain of the

sect of the Pharisees which believed,' and were especially zealous for

all the separating prescriptions of the ceremonial law. They were

scarcely a party as yet, but the little rift was destined to grow, and

they became Paul's bitterest opponents through all his life, dogging

him with calumnies and counterworking his toil. It is a black day for a

Church when differences of opinion lead to the formation of cliques.

Zeal for truth is sadly apt to enlist spite, malice, and blindness to a

manifest work of God, as its allies.

Poor Peter, no doubt, expected that the brethren would rejoice with him

in the extension of the Gospel to 'the Gentiles,' but his reception in

Jerusalem was very unlike his hopes. The critics did not venture to

cavil at his preaching to Gentiles. Probably none of them had any

objection to such being welcomed into the Church, for they can scarcely

have wished to make the door into it narrower than that into the

synagogue, but they insisted that there was no way in but through the

synagogue. By all means, said they, let Gentiles come, but they must

first become Jews, by submitting to circumcision and living as Jews do.

Thus they did not attack Peter for preaching to the Roman centurion and

his men, but for eating with them. That eating not only was a breach of

the law, but it implied the reception of Cornelius and his company into

the household of God, and so destroyed the whole fabric of Jewish

exclusiveness. We condemn such narrowness, but do many of us not

practise it in other forms? Wherever Christians demand adoption of

external usages, over and above exercise of penitent faith, as a

condition of brotherly recognition, they are walking in the steps of

them 'of the circumcision.'

Peter's answer to the critics is the true answer to all similar hedging

up of the Church, for he contents himself with showing that he was only

following God's action in every step of the way which he took, and that

God, by the gift of the divine Spirit, had shown that He had taken

these uncircumcised men into His fellowship, before Peter dared to 'eat

with them.' He points to four facts which show God's hand in the

matter, and thinks that he has done enough to vindicate himself

thereby. The first is his vision on the housetop. He tells that he was

praying when it came, and what God shows to a praying spirit is not

likely to mislead. He tells that he was 'in a trance,'--a condition in

which prophets had of old received their commands. That again was a

guarantee for the divine origin of the vision in the eyes of every Jew,

though nowadays it is taken by anti-supernaturalists as a demonstration

of its morbidness and unreliableness. He tells of his reluctance to

obey the command to 'kill and eat.' A flash of the old brusque spirit

impelled his flat refusal, 'Not so, Lord!' and his daring to argue with

his Lord still, as he had done with Him on earth. He tells of the

interpreting and revolutionary word, evoked by his audacious objection,

and then he tells how 'this was done thrice,' so that there could be no

mistake in his remembrance of it, and then that the whole was drawn up

into heaven,--a sign that the purpose of the vision was accomplished

when that word was spoken. What, then, was the meaning of it?

Clearly it swept away at once the legal distinction of clean and

unclean meats, and of it, too, may be spoken what Mark, Peter's

mouthpiece, writes of earthly words of Christ's: 'This He said, making

all meats clean.' But with the sweeping away of that distinction much

else goes, for it necessarily involves the abrogation of the whole

separating ordinances of the law, and of the distinction between clean

and unclean persons. Its wider application was not seen at the moment,

but it flashed on him, no doubt, when face to face with Cornelius. God

had cleansed him, in that his prayers had 'gone up for a memorial

before God,' and so Peter saw that 'in every nation,' and not among

Jews only, there might be men cleansed by God. What was true of

Cornelius must be true of many others. So the whole distinction between

Jew and Gentile was cut up by the roots. Little did Peter know the

width of the principle revealed to him then, as all of us know but

little of the full application of many truths which we believe. But he

obeyed so much of the command as he understood, and more of it

gradually dawned on his mind, as will always be the case if we obey

what we know.

The second fact was the coincident arrival of the messengers and the

distinct command to accompany them. Peter could distinguish quite

assuredly his own thoughts from divine instructions, as his account of

the dialogue in the trance shows. How he distinguished is not told;

that he distinguished is. The coincidence in time clearly pointed to

one divine hand working at both ends of the line,--Caesarea and Joppa.

It interpreted the vision which had 'much perplexed' Peter as to what

it 'might mean.' But he was not left to interpret it by his own

pondering. The Spirit spoke authoritatively, and the whole force of his

justification of himself depends on the fact that he knew that the

impulse which made him set out to Caesarea was not his own. If the

reading of the Revised Version is adopted in verse 12, 'making no

distinction,' the command plainly referred to the vision, and showed

Peter that he was to make no distinction of 'clean and unclean' in his

intercourse with these Gentiles.

The third fact is the vision to Cornelius, of which he was told on

arriving. The two visions fitted into each other, confirmed each other,

interpreted each other. We may estimate the greatness of the step in

the development of the Church which the admission of Cornelius into it

made, and the obstacles on both sides, by the fact that both visions

were needed to bring these two men together. Peter would never have

dreamed of going with the messengers if he had not had his narrowness

beaten out of him on the housetop, and Cornelius would never have

dreamed of sending to Joppa if he had not seen the angel. The cleft

between Jew and Gentile was so wide that God's hand had to be applied

on both sides to press the separated parts together. He had plainly

done it, and that was Peter's defence.

The fourth fact is the gift of the Spirit to these Gentiles. That is

the crown of Peter's vindication, and his question, 'Who was I, that I

could withstand God?' might be profitably pondered and applied by those

whose ecclesiastical theories oblige them to deny the 'orders' and the

'validity of the sacraments' and the very name of a Church, to bodies

of Christians who do not conform to their polity. If God, by the gift

of His Spirit manifest in its fruits, owns them, they have the true

'notes of the Church,' and 'they of the circumcision' who recoil from

recognising them do themselves more harm thereby than they inflict on

these. 'As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of

God,' even though some brother may be 'angry' that the Father welcomes

them.

Expositions of Holy Scripture: the Acts · 第 136 / 317 题