Act 10:34, Rom 2:11 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 34. Then Peter opened his mouth . Began to speak, . Of a truth . Truly; evidently. That is, I have evidence here that God is no respecter of persons. Is no respecter of persons . The word used here denotes the act of showing favour to one on account of rank, family, wealth, or partiality, arising from any cause. It is explained in . A judge is a respecter of persons when he favours one of the parties on account of private friendship; or because he is a man of rank, influence, or power; or because he belongs to the same political party, etc. The Jews supposed that they were peculiarly favoured by God, and that salvation was not extended to other nations, and that the fact of being a Jew entitled them to this favour. Peter here says that he has learned the error of this doctrine. That a man is not to be accepted because he is a Jew , nor is he to be excluded because he is a Gentile . The barrier is broken down, the offer is made to all, and God will save all on the same principle--not by external privileges, or rank, but according to their character. The same doctrine is elsewhere explicitly stated in the New Testament, . It may be observed here, that this does not refer to the doctrine of Divine sovereignty or election. It simply affirms that God will not save a man because he is a Jew; nor because he is rich, or learned, or of elevated rank; nor by any external privileges. Nor will he exclude any man because he is destitute of these privileges. But this does not affirm that he will not make a difference in their character , and then treat them according to their character; nor that he will not pardon whom he pleases, which is a different question. The interpretation of this passage should be limited strictly to the case in hand--to mean that God will not accept and save a man on account of external national rank and privileges. That by receiving some, and leaving others, on other grounds , he will not make a difference , is not anywhere denied. Comp. . It is worthy of remark, further, that the most strenuous advocate for the doctrines of sovereignty and election in the New Testament--the apostle Paul--is also the one that laboured most to establish the doctrine that God was no respecter of persons; that is, that there was no difference between the Jews and Gentiles in regard to the way of salvation; that God would not save a man because he was a Jew, nor destroy a man because he was a Gentile. Yet, in regard to the whole race viewed as lying on a level , he maintained that God had a right to exercise the prerogatives of a sovereign, and to have mercy on whom he would have mercy. The doctrine may be thus stated: (1.) The barrier, between the Jews and Gentiles was broken down. (2.) All men thus were placed on a level--none to be saved by external privileges, none to be lost by the want of them. (3.) All were guilty, and none had a claim on God. (4.) If any were saved, it would be by God's showing mercy on such of this common mass as he chose. ; compared with . (k) "God is no respector of persons"

Acts 10:34

Verse 34. Then Peter opened his mouth. Began to speak, Mt 5:2.

Of a truth. Truly; evidently. That is, I have evidence here that God is no respecter of persons.

Is no respecter of persons. The word used here denotes the act of showing favour to one on account of rank, family, wealth, or partiality, arising from any cause. It is explained in Jas 2:1-4. A judge is a respecter of persons when he favours one of the parties on account of private friendship; or because he is a man of rank, influence, or power; or because he belongs to the same political party, etc. The Jews supposed that they were peculiarly favoured by God, and that salvation was not extended to other nations, and that the fact of being a Jew entitled them to this favour. Peter here says that he has learned the error of this doctrine. That a man is not to be accepted because he is a Jew, nor is he to be excluded because he is a Gentile. The barrier is broken down, the offer is made to all, and God will save all on the same principle--not by external privileges, or rank, but according to their character. The same doctrine is elsewhere explicitly stated in the New Testament, Rom 2:11, Eph 6:9, Col 3:25. It may be observed here, that this does not refer to the doctrine of Divine sovereignty or election. It simply affirms that God will not save a man because he is a Jew; nor because he is rich, or learned, or of elevated rank; nor by any external privileges. Nor will he exclude any man because he is destitute of these privileges. But this does not affirm that he will not make a difference in their character, and then treat them according to their character; nor that he will not pardon whom he pleases, which is a different question. The interpretation of this passage should be limited strictly to the case in hand--to mean that God will not accept and save a man on account of external national rank and privileges. That by receiving some, and leaving others, on other grounds, he will not make a difference, is not anywhere denied. Comp. 1Cor 4:7, Rom 12:6. It is worthy of remark, further, that the most strenuous advocate for the doctrines of sovereignty and election in the New Testament--the apostle Paul--is also the one that laboured most to establish the doctrine that God was no respecter of persons; that is, that there was no difference between the Jews and Gentiles in regard to the way of salvation; that God would not save a man because he was a Jew, nor destroy a man because he was a Gentile. Yet, in regard to the whole race viewed as lying on a level, he maintained that God had a right to exercise the prerogatives of a sovereign, and to have mercy on whom he would have mercy. The doctrine may be thus stated:

(1.) The barrier, between the Jews and Gentiles was broken down.

(2.) All men thus were placed on a level--none to be saved by external privileges, none to be lost by the want of them.

(3.) All were guilty, Rom 1, 2, 3 and none had a claim on God.

(4.) If any were saved, it would be by God's showing mercy on such of this common mass as he chose. Rom 3:22, 10:12, 2:11, Gal 2:6; compared with Rom 9, Eph 1.

(k) "God is no respector of persons" De 10:17, 2Chr 19:7, Job 34:19 Rom 2:11, Gal 2:6, 1Pet 1:17

Romans 2:11

Verse 11. For. This particle is used here to confirm what is said before, particularly that this punishment should be experienced by the Jew as well as the Gentile. For God would deal with both on the principles of justice.

Respect of persons. The word thus rendered means partiality, in pronouncing judgment, in favouring one party or individual more than another, not because his cause is more just, but on account of something personal--on account of his wealth, or rank, or office, or influence, or by personal friendship, or by the fear of him. It has special reference to a judge who pronounces judgment between parties at law. The exercise of such partiality was strictly and often forbidden to the Jewish magistrates, Lev 19:15, De 1:17, Prov 24:23, Jas 2:1,3,9. In his capacity as a Judge, it is applied often to God. It means that he will not be influenced in awarding the retributions of eternity, in actually pronouncing and executing sentence, by any partiality, or by regard to the wealth, office, rank, or appearance of men. He will judge righteous judgment; he will judge men as they ought to be judged; according to their character and deserts; and not contrary to theft character, or by partiality. The connexion here demands that this affirmation should be limited solely to his dealing with men As THEIR JUDGE. And in this sense, and this only, this is affirmed often of God in the Scriptures, De 10:17, 2Chr 19:7 Eph 6:9, Col 3:25, Gall 6:7,8, 1Pet 1:17, Acts 10:34. It does not affirm that he must make all his creatures equal in talent, health, wealth, or privilege; it does not imply that, as a sovereign, he may not make a difference in their endowments, their beauty, strength, or graces; it does not imply that he may not bestow his favours where he pleases where all are undeserving, or that he may not make a difference in the characters of men by his providence, and by the agency of his Spirit. All these are actually done, done not out of any respect to their persons, to their rank, office, or wealth, but according to his own sovereign good pleasure, Eph 1. To deny that this is done, would be to deny the manifest arrangement of things everywhere on the earth. To deny that God had a right to do it, would be

(1.) to maintain that sinners had a claim on his favours;

(2.) that he might not do what he willed with his own; or

(3.) to affirm that God was under obligation to make all men with just the same talents and privileges; that is, that all creatures must be, in all respects, just alike. This passage, therefore, is very improperly brought to disprove the doctrine of decrees, or election, or sovereignty. It has respect to a different thing, to the actual exercise of the office of the Judge of the world; and whatever may be the truth about God's decrees, or his electing love, this passage teaches nothing in relation to either. It may be added, that this passage contains a most alarming truth for guilty men. It is that God will not be influenced by partiality, but will treat them just as they deserve. He will not be won or awed by their rank or office; by their wealth or endowments; by their numbers, their power, or their robes of royalty and splendour. Every man should tremble at the prospect of falling into the hands of a just God, who will treat him just as he deserves; and should, without delay, seek a refuge in the Saviour and Advocate provided for the guilty, Jn 2:1,2.

(u) "For there is no" De 10:17, 2Chr 19:7, Gal 6:7,8, 1Pet 1:17