The passage
      v1-3. The Jerusalem church was divided between liberals and conservatives, with the apostles sitting on the fence. The liberals were mainly Jews of the dispersion, Greek speaking Jews who aligned with Stephen. The conservatives were mainly residents of Jerusalem and Judea. The conservatives saw themselves as "kosher" believers, and because they were sticklers for the law, they were initially left alone by the Jewish authorities. Paul would soon find himself in dispute with these hard-line believers of the "Circumcision party", these "Judaizers". It was the members of the Circumcision party (better than "circumcised believers") who challenged Peter over his open neglect of the law by his association with Gentiles. Chapter 10 actually doesn't tell us he ate with them, although he did "stay with them for a few days." At any rate, the Jerusalem church soon heard the news and were quickly on the case.
      v4-10. Peter defends himself by narrating the events of his meeting with Cornelius. He begins with his vision on the roof of the Tanner's house in Joppa. The account is now personalized, with some extra details. There is a fourth group of unclean animals in his vision - "wild beasts". The quadrupeds would seem to be clean animals, ie. animals that chewed the cud and had cloven hooves, cf. Lev.11. Yet, clean animals, as well as unclean, seem to undermine the point of the vision and the command "kill and eat". Of course, not all four-footed animals are clean, so they are probably the unclean ones. Note that Peter's response is close to a similar response made by Ezekiel, Ezk.4:14.
      v11-14. Peter now tells of his submission to the Spirit's command. He goes with the three visitors to Caesarea and enters the home of Cornelius. His words here are obviously only a summary. For example, he would have given the details of Cornelius' background - a seeker after God, a God fearer (ie. a Gentile with links to the Jewish faith), a good and righteous man. Note that Peter has brought his "six brothers" with him to substantiate his story. They witnessed the conversion of Cornelius.
      v15-17. We now come to the center of Peter's argument. He states that as he "began to speak the Holy Spirit came on them." Acts 10 records his gospel presentation to Cornelius and his family. Peter's sermon begins with the declaration that "God does not show favoritism", and goes on to outline the life of Jesus, his resurrection, the coming judgment and the forgiveness of sins to those who believe. Before Peter could finish his gospel message, the Spirit fell on his audience - they believed and received the Holy Spirit. The evidence of this lay in their reception of the Holy Spirit "as he had come on us at the beginning", ie. "they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God", Act.10:46. Clearly, this was a Pentecost type experience where ecstatic prophecy served to evidence a widening of membership in the kingdom of God. If the belief of these Gentiles prompted the gift of the Holy Spirit, who was Peter to think he "could oppose God" (ie. refuse baptism, Act.10:47-48). The visible fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 on this occasion, served to prove that the promise applies to all mankind, not just Jews.
      v18. The right of Gentiles to access the Christian church was therefore now established (by God), but the debate over the extent to which Gentiles were bound by Old Testament law was yet to come. The church then "praised God", although one wonders if the members of the Circumcision party were all that joyful.

God does not show favoritism
      After the pictures on Saturday afternoon, our friend Tony Dixon would always have to call into the Roman Catholic church for confession. We would sit on the front steps of the church and wait for him. His church seemed so different, but in the innocence of youth it didn't even register. In my later pious years I did wonder whether his church was the real thing. As the years went by I was to have many pass a similar judgment on my church. There was the Adventist who told me I was outside God's blessings because my church didn't keep the seventh day. There was the Pentecostal who told me that I would never be fully in the Lord while I associated with a church that wasn't Spirit filled. There were many others, and they all remind me of my own youthful partiality.
      The truth is that God shows no partiality. When Peter defended his actions before the Jerusalem church he asked, "who was I to think that I could oppose God?" In the Lord's eyes there is "neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female." Our Lord is not bigoted. Full acceptance before Him rests on grace through faith, it has nothing to do with the privilege of our association. If the children of Abraham had to accept this truth and welcome despised Gentiles into their fellowship, how much more should we welcome fellow believers, whose distinctions and differences are nothing to compare with the difference between a Jew and a Gentile?
      Our passage reminds us to resist the temptation of breaking fellowship with those who have a different theology to our own, but the same faith.

v2
      anebh (anabainw) aor. "went up [to Jerusalem]" - It is interesting how different cultures use the "going up" or "going down" term. In Australia, "going up" means going North, while "going down" means going South. Jerusalem is on the highland plateau, so it is up in height from say Jericho, so "Peter went to Jerusalem."
      oiJ ek peritomhV "the circumcised believers" - those from circumcision. It is unlikely they are unbelieving Jews. They are obviously believers of Jewish birth, but specifically Jewish believers who are unhappy with Peters association with ritually impure Gentiles. Given the ongoing debate over the place of the law in the life of the early church and the degree to which it should be applied to Gentile believers, it is likely that Luke intends us to understand these "believers" as members of "the circumcision party" - "those from the circumcision party."
      diekrinonto (diakrinw) imperf. "criticized" - were taking issue, disputing ..... criticizing. The word can mean entering into a controversy with someone (which is probably the meaning here), or can take a gentler tack, eg. "questioned his action", Barclay.

v3
      Rendered as a question in NRSV
      sunefageV (sunesqew) aor. "ate [with them]" - you ate. In the original account we are not told that Peter eats with Cornelius, although given the substance of the vision, it is probably what he did.

v4
      arxamenoV (arcw) part. "[Peter] began" - having begun. Peter detailed the events from the beginning. His account starts from the very first things that had happened.
      kaqexhV adv. "as it happened" - in order, sequence. Peter gave an account of what had happened "point by point"

v5
      en ekstasei (is ewV) "in a trance" - We might say "having fallen into a trance"
      ek tou ouranou "from heaven" - Peter may simply mean the sky, but probably he is saying that "the heavens opened", ie. the spiritual domain became visible to human senses and displayed a visionary image.
      hJlqen acri emou "it came down to where I was" - it came up to me, came near me. The sheet was lowered into Peter's presence.

v6
      ta qhria "wild beasts" - wild animals. An addition to the list in 11:6.

v7
      quson (quw) aor. "kill" - sacrifice. The word means to kill for the purpose of a sacrifice, but this is obviously not intended here. The spiritual significance of the occasion has probably prompted the use of this word.

v8
      mhdamwV adv. "surely not" - by no means. Certainly not. The word is a strong negation.
      koinon h akaqarton "impure or unclean" - defiled or unclean. The sense is of ritually defiled or unclean, impure.

v9
      ekaqarisen (kaqarizw) aor. "has made clean" - made clean, cleansed. Made suitable to be eaten. What God has declared suitable is suitable.

v10
      touto de egeneto epi triV "this happened three times" - this happened on three. Did the vision repeat itself three times or did God tell Peter to eat three times? The second option is to be preferred.

v11
      idou exauthV "right then" - behold at once, immediately, suddenly ... Also possibly just a transitional phrase "in the meantime"

v12
      to pneuma "the Spirit" - Note that in v8 Peter refers to the voice as "Lord".
      mhden diakrinanta "have no hesitation" - without making a distinction. A textual variant here causes a minor problem. The NIV, along with the NEB, opts for "without hesitation", while NRSV sides with the UBS Geek NT. reading.

v14
      kai paV oJ oikoV sou "and all your household" - all the house of you. The salvation of households is an interesting feature in Acts. Of course, a promise to a specific group of people is not necessarily a promise to us. None-the-less, it does demonstrate a feature often repeated in the scriptures, namely, that God works with families, presumably because he has created the family as the fundamental unit of human association and therefore tends to act in a way that does not undermine this unit. So, we have here the source of a general principle, but not a rule (namely: if the head of the home is saved then all members of the family are incorporated in that individuals salvation - does this include the staff?).

v15
      epepesen (epiptw) aor. "came on" - fell, fell upon. Always an interesting language problem for the modern mind. To a Jew, the Spirit obviously proceeds from an opening in the heavens and falls upon the recipient. To our mind, a spiritual confrontation involves our being surrounded and possessed.
      en arch/ "at the beginning" - in beginning. ie. when first the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, namely, the feast of Pentecost following Jesus' crucifixion.

v16
      ebaptisen (baptizw) aor. "baptized" - immersed. This word can cause problems where the type of "baptism" intended is unclear. Here it is clear. A word such as "immerse" is not so powerfully tied to water christening/baptizing and therefore, easily includes a figurative sense, eg. I am immersed in my work...

v17
      pisteusasin (pisteuw) part. "who believed" - having believed. This is a very important word, meaning something like a firm resolve to take God at his word, to commit to him.
      epi "in" - upon. This preposition, followed by the accusative, means movement onto. "I put the weight of my resolve onto/upon Jesus."
      egw tiV hmhn dunatoV kwlusai ton qeon "who was I to think that I could oppose God" - who was I able to hinder God. This phrase in the Greek carries two ideas prompted by "who was I" and the adjective "able/strong/possible" with the infinitive verb "hinder/prevent." Was Peter able to hinder God's will? Who was Peter to think that he was able to hinder God's will? Peter knew the answer to both questions and it seems his opponents did as well.