Gentiles and Grace

An exposition of Acts chapter 10

By Ian Thomason

Introduction

This is the third essay in a series of four that seeks to interact with the book of Acts in an attempt to understand Luke’s theology as it relates to the subject of Christian conversion. Unfortunately, the Acts is mistakenly viewed within many Revivalist circles as being the only, or worse still, as the primary biblical account given to us that provides commentary on normative Christian practices, beliefs and functions. Sadly, a misunderstanding of the aim, purpose and scope of this very book has led to the Revivalist groups creating, propagating and attempting to defend a range of unbiblical doctrines[1].

The aim of this essay, in keeping with the theme of the ‘Acts series’, is to reflect on the purpose, context, scope and situation that Acts chapter 10 effects in Luke’s historiography. I recommended the following articles be consulted, in order, to properly develop an appreciation of the progressive historical and theological contexts that are necessary to correctly understanding the Acts 10 narrative: [Pentecost],  [Acts 2:38], and [Acts 8].

Overview

By way of a brief overview, Luke’s purposes in preparing The Acts were several-fold. Primarily, however, he sought to provide a well-researched, considered and concise apologetic for the post crucifixion ministry of Jesus as the resurrected and glorified Christ. To achieve this, Luke crafted his narrative around a critical verse, 1:8, “…but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."  Jesus’ promissory statement provides us, significantly removed from the events by culture, circumstance and time, with Luke’s immediate and overarching theological context. First, his intent was to chart the expansion of the gospel message from Jerusalem and the Jews, to the outer borders of the Roman Empire and the Gentiles. In achieving this end Luke specifically focuses on the corporate conversion of racial/sociological groups, which receive substantial attention (Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19), more than he does individuals, whose accounts receive only passing comment (e.g. Acts 8:26-40, 16:23-36). This demonstrated both the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophetic word to the nations, and the inclusiveness of Christian salvation that lay at the heart of it. Second, the movement of the gospel was made possible through the power, or agency of God, the Holy Spirit. The growth of the Christian Church, therefore, was not the product of slick marketing, developed human skill or even articulate preaching. It was completely dependent upon the direct, continued and focussed activity of God working among the Christians. Third, and very importantly, the entire mission would be achieved by, because of, and through, the authority of the apostles acting as Jesus’ chosen and appointed representatives[2]. Christ’s commission to preach the Christian gospel, as recorded and interpreted by Luke, therefore had a very real context.

It is only through identifying Luke’s own emphases that we, as interpreters of his writings, can readily perceive the points of transition, which characterise his work. Now, having briefly done so, we can appreciate that the earlier chapters, up to and including chapter six, related primarily to the call of Peter and to his mission to the Jews. We then identify the events of chapter seven as being the first critical point of transition in the book. Luke informs us that it was the circumstances surrounding the ‘Stephen incident’ that enabled the gospel message to ‘break-free’ of Jerusalem, which ultimately ensured that it cast off its parochial ‘Jewishness’. In chapter eight we encounter the events that saw the inclusion of the half-caste Samaritans into the New Covenant community. Importantly, the standing of this long despised element into the Church was affirmed by two groups of two witnesses: God, the Son coupled with God, the Holy Spirit on the one hand; and the apostles Peter and John on the other. This is in perfect harmony with the established principles of Jewish legal praxis (Cf. Deuteronomy 19:15, 30:19; Matthew 18:16; and Revelation 11:3). Any opportunity that the ‘Jewish Christians’ centred on Jerusalem might have hoped for in order to secure grounds to reject the Samaritans from full fellowship was, therefore, effectively crushed.  Now, only the last great barrier to the universality of Christian salvation needed to be broached.

Cornelius the ‘God-fearer’

At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, "Cornelius!" Cornelius stared at him in fear. "What is it, Lord?" he asked. The angel answered, "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea[3]."

Cornelius was an important man. He was a Roman military official, a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer, a battle-hardened warrior who exercised strict authority over a formed body comprising one hundred regular soldiers. Cornelius was not a Jew. Worse still, he represented something even more detested and despised than the Samaritans. Cornelius represented Rome.

A notable feature of Luke as an author is that he was extremely precise in his use of technical terminology. This assertion is reinforced by his describing Cornelius with an expression holding a very explicit range of meaning: ‘phoboumenos ton Theon’, translated as ‘God-fearing’ into English.

In Acts, then, ‘hoi phoboumenoi ton Theon’ [the Greek script has been transliterated into English for ease of use] would seem to refer to “the pious” amongst the Jewish community, whether Jew or Gentile, proselyte or “adherent”. This in turn fits with the fact that the phrase occurs only in that part of Acts in which the thought of the specifically Jewish mission is uppermost…Cornelius would thus be one who has adopted the piety proper to the Jews. The term ‘phoboumenos ton Theon—if a technical term at all—denotes one who is especially devout[4].

Although a Roman, and, therefore on the ‘outer’ so far as the Jews were concerned, Cornelius was reputed to be extraordinarily pious in his observance towards the One True God. Consequently, the centurion was granted an angelic visitation, a ‘sign of favour’ Scripture records as being reserved for very few. The angel commanded Cornelius to summon Simon Peter.

Peter’s Vision  

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven[5].

Ten years had passed since Pentecost and Peter’s sermon affirming Jesus as the Christ by virtue of His resurrection. It was this notable event that had ushered in the universal opportunity for salvation through Him (see Acts 2:39). It was five years since the epoch-changing incident that saw the Samaritans accepted and included into full Christian fellowship. There too the Apostle Peter had played a pivotal role.  Now, we discover him to be visiting the town of Joppa, engaged in discharging his apostolic and pastoral duties. It had been a busy time for Peter, what with strengthening the saints, the healing of the sick and the raising of the dead. The outcome of all this activity, as Luke assures us in verse forty-two, was: “This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord.”  People believed in the Lord, or to express the statement another way, people were saved. The question might rightly be asked, what were the signs that caused the people to believe in the Lord? The answer is simple. They were precisely the same signs that we find littered throughout the book of Acts – miraculous healings, coupled in this instance at least, with the raising of a person from the dead. Curiously, there is no mention of people turning towards God because someone preached to them proof of His existence via ‘speaking in tongues’. The people of Lydda, the region of Sharon and the town of Joppa converted because they witnessed human bodies restored to health (and life) through the prayers of an apostle of Jesus!

Peter later retired to Simon Tanner’s house[6] to rest, and at noon had gone onto the roof to pray. At some stage during his devotions he became hungry, and while waiting for his meal to arrive, he fell into a trance and experienced a vision. The thrust of the message encapsulated by the vision related to the ‘goodness’ of God’s Creation (cf. Genesis 1:21 and 25). To be sure, God had provided Israel with a number of unique laws that were intended to reinforce their state of ritual separation and purity from the nations about (including a range of food laws). However, the Jews had failed to comprehend their purpose and significance. In the 1^st century, the dietary laws had become simply a further excuse for Jewish partition from non-Jews.

God demonstrated clearly to Peter the folly of this position.

Peter ‘sees the light’

While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon's house was and stopped at the gate. They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there. While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them." Peter went down and said to the men, "I'm the one you're looking for. Why have you come?" The men replied, "We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say." Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests. The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went along[7].

It was proving to be an interesting day for Peter. He had experienced a rather sobering vision, whilst entranced, and one which ended with the Holy Spirit speaking clearly and directly to him about the three visitors who had just arrived!

It is important to appreciate the significance of the visitors being Gentiles. They were not Jews, a fact that would have been immediately obvious to Simon Peter, and to his host, Simon Tanner. However, and this is important, Peter invited the men to come into the house to stay with him as his guests. This action rendered Peter, Simon Tanner, his (probable) family and the house itself ritually unclean. It seems certain, therefore, that Peter was starting to comprehend the scope of the plan and purpose of God. “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went along. The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself." Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?" Cornelius answered: "Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me and said, 'Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.' So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us." Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right[8].

Cornelius had assembled with his relatives and his closest friends to hear this man sent from God. However, it is unlikely that Cornelius understood Peter to be a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. The centurion was well respected by the local Jewish community. Given the growth and mission of the Church throughout the surrounding region, and the nature of his duties, it is quite likely that Cornelius had a measure of background knowledge on this newest of Jewish sects. It is also probable that much of this information was negative, and was passed to him via his Jewish associates.

Peter’s message and the Gentile Pentecost

Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached--how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen--by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name[9]."

Simon Peter, Christ’s Apostle, was faced with several difficult realities. The Jewish-Christian associates who accompanied him to Caesarea would certainly have shared in his misgivings. However, it was clear that God had broken down the racial barriers that had so long separated the Jews from non-Jews. This had commenced with the Samaritan episode. God, the Father, had now favoured Cornelius, a Gentile (and Roman at that), with an angelic visitation. God, the Holy Spirit, had spoken to Peter by way of a vision and a voice confirming this. The implications that Peter no doubt mulled over simply did not fit with the Jewish-Christian expectations. This was new.

Accepting that God had led him to Caesarea, Peter set about expanding Cornelius’ understanding of Him. He achieved this by preaching Jesus. It is important to understand that when comparisons are made with his sermon to the Jews at Pentecost, the content of Peter’s message to Cornelius had not changed. Although fully ten years had passed, and that now he faced a Gentile rather than a Jewish audience, Peter still limited his preaching to Jesus as the crucified, resurrected and glorified Christ. The Holy Spirit, God’s ‘silent partner’ in the miracle of salvation, remains just that – the ‘silent partner’ (see John 15:13-16). Peter’s salvation message is, therefore, fully orthodox, and so should form the model for what we preach to others today. The all-important question remains, is our gospel about a Person (Jesus) or a ‘sign’ (‘tongues’)? [See the Gospel].

The climax of Peter’s message to Cornelius’ household was, “…that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”  

As he uttered these words, unexpectedly, something very peculiar occurred.

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have[10]."

Given the specifics of the account, as Luke carefully recorded them, it would seem that Revivalists may be in the habit of overlooking a number of critically important points in their reading of this particular passage. First, it must be noted that the content of Peter’s message was strictly limited to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Peter nowhere mentioned, hinted at or implied that the Gentiles needed to be baptised in water and/or ‘filled with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues’ in order to be saved. He simply stated, “…that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” The corollary to this salient fact is that the Jewish-Christian believer’s, those who were with Peter, and who were eyewitness to the proceedings, were astonished[11] that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles. If, as Revivalists posit, what happened should be taken as normative, and therefore supposedly routine, then why did the Jewish-Christians express “…astonishment mingled with fear, caused by events which are miraculous, extraordinary, or difficult to understand?” According to the Revivalist context, these men should have expected what had just occurred, given the content of Peter’s preaching (i.e. the fact that he was preaching a salvation gospel). Clearly, though, they didn’t. The men were both shaken and perplexed. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have…"

Cornelius’ household experienced Pentecost. Luke’s choice of wording would naturally cause his readers to reflect on former events as they unfolded when God’s Holy Spirit birthed the Christian Church at Jerusalem. The Jewish-Christians certainly heard the Gentiles ‘speaking in tongues’, but Peter’s comment implies considerably more than that. The apostle stated that they (i.e. Cornelius’ household) received the Holy Spirit just as we have. The first point to consider is that on the day of Pentecost, the sign of languages was but one of three outward manifestations of the imparted Holy Spirit: (1) a noise of a violent wind, (2) a visible, parting flame, and (3) the languages of the Gentile world supernaturally spoken. This, of course, reflected the circumstances surrounding the giving of the Law at Sinai. The manifestation of ‘tongues’ alone at Caesarea would not have fulfilled the miraculous criteria that Peter referred to. Nor is it likely that ‘tongues’ alone would have caused the degree of astonishment that was experienced by the Jewish-Christian eyewitnesses. It seems likely, therefore, although not specifically mentioned by Luke, that the full range of audible and visible manifestations was repeated in Cornelius’ house. Such an event would certainly have caused considerable ‘astonishment mingled with fear’, given the significance of Pentecost in the Jewish context[12].

Next, how are we to understand Peter’s apparently inclusive reference by his use of the first person, plural ‘we’?

Who are the ‘We?’

Realistically, there are only three viable options that address this question. The first is that Peter was including his Jewish-Christian associates from Joppa in a mutually shared experience that occurred at Pentecost, Jerusalem, in 30 AD. This is the position proposed by Revivalists, however, I believe it stumbles at several critical junctures. Perhaps the major objection to this line of reasoning, though, is that Luke himself discounts the possibility of this being the case. In chapter two verse four, the verb ‘epleestheesan’ (‘they were filled’, which is immediately followed by ‘…with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues’, etc.) appears. The antecedent substantive to the verb in this particular paragraph appears in chapter one, verse twenty-six: ‘hendeka apostolon’ (the ‘eleven apostles’, plus Matthias). Therefore, Luke clearly records for us, that it was the apostles alone who manifested the miraculous languages on that day [see Pentecost]. There is absolutely no mention (or even an oblique hint) of a repetition of the miraculous signs occurring with the initial 3,000 converts.  They simply believed and were baptised.

The second position, the one that appears most likely given that it does not suffer from any lexicographical, theological or logical difficulties, is that Peter intended that a more exclusive sense be understood by his use of the first person, plural and emphatic ‘we’. Peter was an apostle, and was, therefore, an undisputed leader within the Christian Church. It was the apostles alone who functioned as Jesus’ shaliach, and who exercised authority over Christ’s Church. In this sense, then, Peter’s use of ‘we’ functions in precisely the same manner as does John’s use of the term in 1 John 1:1, where it describes the exclusive, apostolic eyewitness. This position, not surprisingly, is also more in keeping with Luke’s recurring emphasis on the authority and role played by the apostles (notably Peter at this stage) throughout the book of Acts.

Finally, it might be that Peter intended a limited inclusive sense, insofar that the ‘we’ related to the apostles as representatives of Jewry in general. This understanding would connote a direct comparison with and, therefore, union between the (original) ‘Jewish Pentecost’ and the altogether unexpected ‘Gentile Pentecost’. And, just as the first Jewish Christians were not praying for, or seeking after any ‘sign’ when the Holy Spirit overshadowed them, neither were the first Gentile Christians. In both cases, the event was unexpected. Now, contrast this with the position promoted by the Revivalists. 

Summary

As we work through the Acts we cannot but note that the events recorded by Luke in chapter ten do not match the theology or praxis of the Revivalist churches. The single, direct biblical parallel between the events of Cornelius’ house is to be found in Acts chapter two. In both instances the Holy Spirit moved in a sovereign manner, and, importantly, in an unexpected manner. In both instances Peter had preached Jesus Christ as the crucified, risen and glorified Messiah. In both instances the pattern of events included a command for baptism.

Also of note, in both instances no one was ‘seeking’ for the Holy Spirit.

It might be helpful at this point, to reproduce the chiasmus example that is included in the Acts chapter eight essay [see Spirit and Samaria].

Graphically we observe that of the four occasions in the Acts where Luke records the Holy Spirit being imparted, two occur sovereignly, and two occur at the hands of the apostles. Irrespective of the agency, however, another feature is worthy of note. In each and every case, the Holy Spirit is given to complete groups corporately, and not to individuals separately. The occurrences in the Acts were indicative of the very specific plan and purpose of God around which Luke crafted his narrative – the movement of the Christian gospel towards Rome, thereby incorporating all nations and peoples into the plan of salvation. Unfortunately, the Revivalist groups have misunderstood this key fact, and have translated these events into something they were never intended to represent – normative examples of individual Christian conversions.

The Revivalist groups have forced an association to fit a theology where no association exists. That this has occurred is indeed unfortunate, however, it was also completely avoidable in the first instance. Unfortunately, inappropriate interpretative principles [see Bible Interpretation] coupled with a superficial reading of Scripture, superimposed upon a rigidly inflexible frame-of-reference determined this course. In allowing this to occur, the various Revivalist Oversights have supported the oldest of errors - they have read their theology into the Bible texts, rather than drawing their theology out from the same.

The book of Acts must be read as Luke intended, objectively; and not as many are prone to doing today, subjectively. To engage in the former ensures the reception of Luke’s message. To engage in the latter is to court a result very similar to that embraced by the Revivalists. One will lead to spiritual truth, the other will not. I also offer that the ultimate outcome will be eternal.