Presented to Swift Current Corps of The Salvation Army, 02 June 2013 and 24 May 2015 by Captain Michael Ramsay
This is the June 2013 text. To read the May 2015 text, please click here: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.ca/2015/05/acts-101-1117-impartiality-of-god.html
This is the June 2013 text. To read the May 2015 text, please click here: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.ca/2015/05/acts-101-1117-impartiality-of-god.html
Acts 11:17 : So if God gave them the same gift [of the Spirit and therefore of Salvation] as He gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?
Today's talk is going to be a little bit different than most of our Sunday messages. Today will be more of a teach than a preach and this is for a couple of reasons. 1) There was a question that has come up a few times in people's Bible study as we have been looking through the book as Acts that I tough we should look at and 2) I wasn't planning on preaching today so I decided that I would re-write an academic paper that I had previously written rather than just wing it from the pulpit here.
Acts 10, which we are going to look at today, has been considered a very important chapter because it is understood to be the place where the Good News of Christ is brought to the Gentiles. Peter is recorded as declaring after this encounter with God and the centurion, Cornelius in Acts 10:34ff., “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). Acts 10:1-16 contains the visions the Lord gave to Cornelius and to the Apostle Peter.
In Acts 10:1-8 the reader is introduced to Cornelius and the vision that God gave to him. Cornelius is not only a foreigner but also a commander of the occupying military forces. The Romans were known to tolerate foreign religions and even invoke the names of regional deities before they attacked a city;[1] however, it is quite another thing for Cornelius to be “a devout man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and prayed constantly to God” (Acts 10:2). This brings us to our first question of the text before us today:
1) Does this pericope, Acts 10, recall the first time that the Gospel (Good News of Christianity) is brought to the Gentiles (who had not already converted to the Israelites religion)?
HELLENIST JEWS
It is a commonly held idea that this chapter is a record of the Gospel being brought to the non-Jewish Gentiles for the very first time; is this so? After all, Centurion Cornelius “is introduced by language which presents him as already exhibiting similarities with members of the messianic assemblies.”[2] And back in Acts 6, which we looked at in Bible study this week, it records that there was a dispute where “the Grecian/Hellenists [Christians] complained against the Hebrews [Christians] because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food” (Acts 6:1). 'Grecian' or 'Hellenist' (depending on your Bible translation) or is just another word for 'Greek' and 'Greek' is just another word for Gentile; so from this it appears that before ever occurs our encounter with Cornelius recorded in Chapter 10; there were already, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Christian communities that consisted, at least in part, of Gentile believers.
So how can this be? How can Acts 10 be considered the first time that the Gospel is brought to the Gentiles when Gentile or Hellenist Christians are mentioned in Chapter 6? One possible explanation for this is that the Hellenist-Gentile believers referred to in Acts 6 may not have been Gentiles exactly per sae. This possible explanation would be why some translators would have translated the word as 'Grecian'/‘Hellenist’ rather than ‘Gentile’ in Chapter 6. These Grecian/Hellenists or Gentiles in Chapter 6 may not have been of Greek blood. They may have actually been people of Jewish ethnicity who are were simply born abroad as opposed to those born in Judea. It would then only be those born in Judea who would be referred to in this pericope as ‘the Jews.’
This would be like if we -Susan, the girls and I- were posted in Germany when Heather was born, she would probably speak more German than we do; by now she would certainly act more like a German 3 year-old than a Canadian 3 year-old. She, however, would not be allowed to obtain German citizenship. She would be a Canadian citizen even though everything about her would appear to be German. And Canadian children, if we moved back here when she was starting school at age 4 or 5, could very likely refer to her as German or though she is Canadian. This could be the situation in Acts 6. It certainly is one explanation for the Hellenists. They speak, appear, and live in the Greek (Gentile) world but they may in fact actually be ethnic Jews rather than Greeks (Gentiles).
JEWISH PROSELYTES
Referring to the first question in our bulletins then, This might explain how the author of Acts could refer to people as Hellenist/Greek/ Gentile believers in Chapter 6 and still have Chapter 10 be, as is commonly thought, the first time that the Gospel is brought to the Gentiles. But there is, however, still the question of an “Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury;” (Acts 8:27), mentioned 2 chapters earlier, in Chapter 8; was this person a Jew? The fact that “he had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home; seated in his chariot, [and] he was reading the prophet Isaiah,” as recorded in Acts 8:27-28, would indicate that he was at least of the Jewish faith, a proselyte if not fully of the Jewish race.[3] At least one of those mentioned in Chapter 6 – Nicolaus -is probably a proselyte (Acts 6:5).
Who can tell me here what is referred to as a proselyte? (a Gentile convert to the Israelite religion) And what did we say a Grecian/ Hellenist probably is? (A Judean, a Jew, and Israelite born abroad). So like the Grecian/Hellenists are mostly probably Jews born abroad (they knew God but had not met Jesus yet); the proselyte was likely someone who wasn't born a Jew but converted to the faith, like the Ethiopian.
So how are these Grecian/Hellenist Jewish-Christians of Chapter 6 and the proselyte Jewish-Christian of Chapter 8 any different from the Gentile Christians of Acts 10? The main difference is that before the Hellenists of Chapter 6 became Christians, they were Jews (they were Jews born abroad); before the foreign-born proselyte of Chapter 8 accepted Christ, he had probably already converted to the religion of the Jews. So then Chapter 10 here with Cornelius would be considered the first time the Gospel was brought to the 'pure' Gentiles because he was not born a Jew and he probably had not fully converted to Judaism but instead he may have gone straight from not fully following the LORD at all to fully accepting Jesus as Lord. He certainly would have been among the first who became a Christian without first fully becoming a Jew. Does this make sense?
WAS CORNELIUS A JEWISH PROSELYTE?
Another logical question does arise though and that is: was Centurion Cornelius himself a proselyte rather than a Gentile? As he was not a full member of the Jewish community, (cf. Acts 10:22, 28) and “although Luke attaches considerable importance to the God-fearing Gentiles in Acts, we have no standard definition or precise classification of ‘God-fearing’ from the ancient world,”[4] it would seem that he was what we would consider an ‘adherent’ in today’s vernacular. That would be like in The Salvation Army today the difference between a soldier and an adherent. A solider here doesn't drink or smoke and is allowed to wear a uniform but an adherent isn't. A Jewish proselyte, a convert, likewise would be circumcised but an adherent wouldn't. Does that make sense? So then accepting that the Ethiopian eunuch of Chapter 8 was a proselyte, the very fact that Luke did not portray Philip as having the same aversion to the Ethiopian as ‘unclean’ as Peter did to the Roman Centurion leads to the conclusion that Cornelius falls into that altogether separate category from that of the Ethiopian. He was probably at most an adherent.
So then does this pericope, Acts 10, recall the first time that the Gospel (Good News of Christianity) is brought to the Gentiles (who have not already converted to the Israelites religion)? Probably, yes.
Thank you for indulging me in a little bit of academia today, with this first question. The next few questions we look at won't be presented nearly as complex, I promise.
2) Do Gentiles who accept Christ need to follow Jewish rules?
Now, in Acts 10:10-16 it is recorded that Peter saw in his vision that “the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners” (Acts 10:11) and in the sheet were all kinds of unclean animals; Peter was commanded, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” (Acts 10:13). There are a number of things that are notable about this section. One is that God commands Peter to get up, kill, and eat. Jews are not supposed to eat those things and “the dietary laws are not a matter of etiquette or peculiar culinary habits. They are a matter of survival and identity for Jews. And yet can it be that these laws are being supplanted by some other basis for survival and identity,”[5] particularly since “the relation between the Jews and the Gentiles must have been very much in his mind with the expansion of the church.”[6]
Peter’s dream is how “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean” (Acts 10:28). It has been interpreted as the great revelation to Peter that the Gentiles are to be brought into community. It was decided, following this event and after much discussion, that the Gentiles do not need to follow all of the Jewish practices (Acts 15:7-10): “After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear.’” James, with stipulations, concurred “…we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood” (Acts 15:19-20). So do Gentiles who accept Christ need to follow Jewish rules? No.
3) Do Christian Jews need to follow Jewish rules?
There are questions though about whether the Jewish believer was now entitled to eat what was previously known as ‘unclean’ food. Prior to even Peter’s vision, the food laws, themselves, were abolished by Jesus. “No doubt he [Peter] was present when his Master, in a debate with the Pharisees and scribes, insisted that it is not what goes into someone’s stomach that conveys defilement, but what comes out of one’s heart;”[7] “he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19). Therefore it would appear that Peter accepted Jesus’ teaching on clean and unclean foods well before the incident related in Acts 10:10-16 and was deserving of the rebuke he received much later from Paul as recorded in the book of Galatians. So then do Christian Jews need to follow Jewish rules? The New Testament seems to be very clear that they do not.
Let's review what we have been reminded of today.
1) Does this pericope, Acts 10, recall the first time that the Gospel (Good News of Christianity) is brought to the Gentiles (who have not already converted to the Israelites religion)? Yes and No. It is however apparently the first time that Gentiles became Christians without also first becoming Jews.
2) Do Gentiles who accept Christ need to follow Jewish rules? No.
3) Do Jews who accept Christ need to follow Jewish rules? No.
4) What does this all mean to us today?
Of primary significance to this passage in Acts then seems to be “God’s plan to allow uncircumcised but repentant Gentiles to experience the blessing of Israel’s salvation (cf. 10:44; 11:15-18; 15:8-11) and define the terms of Paul’s future mission to the Gentiles.”[8] God dealt directly with Peter, a Jew, and Cornelius, a Gentile. The Good News is to be brought to the Gentiles and, as Peter states, “We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (Acts 15:11) for “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).
So what does this all mean for us today? Last week when looking at Acts 15, we noted that the Holy Spirit is available to everyone and so we asked ourselves, are we (available to everyone)?
Today, I think we need to also ask ourselves, are any of our actions, traditions, customs, and rules, like those of some of the early Jewish Christians, standing in the way of people coming to the Lord? There is an old expression about succeeding in life that I think applies to Salvation in general; re. experiencing eternal life: It is not what you know that matters; it is who you know. Along those lines I ask us this week, are there any of our own traditions that are more important to us than other people's salvation? As holy people, I hope not. Acts 11:17 says that if we do indeed we are opposing God. Let us pray.
---
[2] John T. Squires, “Acts.” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. (ed. by James D.G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids, Michigan; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), p. 1235.
[3] Robert W. Wall, ‘Acts’ The New Interpreter’s Bible 10, (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2002), p. 162.
[4] Robert W. Wall, ‘Acts’ The New Interpreter’s Bible 10, (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2002), p. 162.
[5] William H. William, ‘Acts’, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1988), p. 96.
[6] William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles. (TNBC: Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981), p. 138.
[7] Fredrick Frye Bruce, The Book of Acts. (TNICNT: Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 206
[8] Robert W. Wall, ‘Acts’ The New Interpreter’s Bible 10, (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2002), p. 160.
Posts
