Acts 10:28

Acts 10:28. Ye know. We find the same form of appeal to the knowledge of the hearers below, Acts 10:37. Those to whom St. Peter spoke were familiar by hearsay with the main facts connected with the early promulgation of the gospel; and they were familiar by experience with the impediments to social intercourse which existed between Jews and Gentiles, especially in Judæa.

An unlawful thing. A difficulty has been needlessly imported into this phrase. The word (ἀθέμιτον) denotes rather what is opposed to venerable custom than what is contrary 10 positive law. There is no precise and explicit text in the Old Testament which forbids such intercourse, but the strict avoiding of such intercourse is in harmony with the whole spirit of the Old Testament. As to the fact of this scrupulous separation, we have the evidence of contemporary poets and historians in harmony with that experience of Cornelius, to which appeal is made. Juvenal (Sat. xiv. 103) says it was the custom of the Jews ‘non monstrare vias, eadem nisi sacra colenti,' and Tacitus (Hist. v. 5) says of them, ‘Adversus omnes hostile odium, separati epulis, discreti cubilibus.'

To keep company, or to come unto one of another nation. The primary reference is to the custom of eating together at the same table. This is the point specified in chap. Acts 11:3 (see Galatians 2:12). It is possible that at this moment provisions were set forth to view, made ready for the refreshment of the travellers after their journey. It is precisely in this particular that there would be the greatest risk of a violation of the law of Moses. From this point of view, too, we see the peculiar significance of St. Peter's vision. It must be added that the phrase ‘of another nation' is very gentle.

God hath showed me. The word ‘me' is emphatic, and it is contrasted with ‘ye' above. Dean Alford puts this point well: ‘ Ye, though ye see me here, know how strong the prejudice is which would have kept me away; and I, though entertaining fully this prejudice myself, yet have been taught,' etc. We should not fail to observe the stress which he lays on the fact that God had taught him what he had learnt (see above on the direct communication of the Holy Spirit, Acts 10:19). So far, St. Peter had now fully entered into the meaning of the vision. Only one other part of this Divine teaching was required (see note on Acts 10:34). It is observable that Peter says nothing to Cornelius of the strange sight which he had seen in his trance. This reticence is thoroughly natural.