Presented to Swift Current Corps of The
Salvation Army, 02 June 2013 and May 24, 2015 by Captain Michael Ramsay
This is the 2015 message. To read the 2013
homily click here: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.ca/2013/06/acts-101-1118-its-all-in-who-you-know.html
Acts 10 is considered a very important
chapter in the NT because it is understood to be the place where the Good News
of Salvation is brought to Non-Jewish Gentiles for the first time. Peter is
recorded as declaring in Acts 10:34-35, “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.”
In Acts 10:1-8 the reader is introduced to
the Roman, Cornelius, and his vision from God. Cornelius is not only a
foreigner but also a commander of the occupying military forces. Historically,
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 a centurion 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). Acts 10 is often called the place where the Gospel is given to the
Gentiles. This brings us to our first question: Is this true?
1)
Does Acts 10 really recall the first
time that the Gospel of Salvation is shared with the [non-Jewish] Gentiles?
1a)
What about the Gentiles of Chapter 6?
Acts 6, which we looked at in our Boundless
readings last week, records that there was a dispute where “the Grecian or
Hellenists [Christians] complained against the Hebrews [Christians] because
their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food” (Acts
6:1). Do you know what the words 'Grecian' or 'Hellenist' (depending on your
Bible translation) mean? Both words mean 'Greek' and 'Greek' is just another
word for ‘Gentile’. Gentile, Grecian, Hellenist, and Greek all can mean exactly
the same thing.
So how can this be? How can Acts 10 be
considered the first time the Gospel is brought to the Gentiles when
Gentiles/Hellenist Christians were already mentioned in Acts 6? Some academics
have suggested that the Hellenist or Gentile believers referred to in Acts 6
may not have really been Gentiles.[2] This would explain why some translators
have translated the word 'Grecian' or ‘Hellenist’ rather than ‘Gentile’ in
Chapter 6. These Hellenists, Gentiles,
or Greeks in Chapter 6 may not actually have been of Greek blood. They may have
been people of Jewish ethnicity who were simply born abroad. This may be why
they are called Hellenists rather than Gentiles or Jews in Chapter 6.
This would be like if we -Susan, the girls
and I- were posted to Germany when Heather was born, she would probably speak
more German than we do; by now she would certainly act more like a German 4
year-old than a Canadian 4 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 to Canada when she starts kindergarten in the fall, would most likely
refer to her as German even though she would not be German, she would be
Canadian (because she would speak German and act German). This could be the
situation in Acts 6. It certainly is one possible explanation for why there are
apparent Gentiles in the church in Chapter 6 but Chapter 10 is said to be the
first time the Gospel is brought to the Gentiles. They look, speak, and live
like Gentiles in the Gentile world but they may in fact actually be ethnic Jews
living in a Gentile part of the world rather than ethnic Gentiles. Does this
make sense? So, what is a Hellenist?
1b)
What about the Ethiopian of Chapter 8?
This may be so. But even if it is, this
still doesn’t entirely solve our problem because, as you were reading along in
your Boundless readings this week, you no doubt have noticed that after Chapter
6 and before Chapter 10 there is yet another time when the Gospel appears to
come to the Gentiles.
In Chapter 8 Verse 27 we meet the Ethiopian
eunuch, a court official of the queen of the Ethiopians. This Ethiopian in Acts
8 receives the Gospel and becomes a Christian, so how can Acts 10 be the first
time the Gospel is received by Gentiles?
Could this Ethiopian we meet in Chapter 8 not be a Gentile? Might he
really be 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,” Acts 8:27-28, would indicate that he was at least a practitioner of
the ancient Israelite faith even if not of the Jewish race [3] (cf. Acts 6:5);
so is this Ethiopian a proselyte?
First, before we can answer that question,
who can tell me what is a ‘proselyte’? (Gentile convert to the Israelite
religion) And what did we say a Hellenist probably is? (Judean born abroad). So
like the Hellenists are mostly probably ethnic Jews born abroad, the Ethiopian
proselyte here is likely someone who wasn't born a Jew but was later
circumcised as he converted to the Jews’ religion.
This brings us back to our main question:
is Chapter 10 the first time the good news is accepted by Gentiles? How are
these Hellenist Christians of Chapter 6 and the proselyte Christian of Chapter
8 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 who were 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 non-Jewish Gentiles because Cornelius was not born a
Jew and he probably had not previously converted to a Jewish religion: he may
have been the first person to go straight to being a Christian (serving Jesus
as his Lord) without first becoming a Jew. Does this make sense?
1c) Was Cornelius a Jewish proselyte?
But is this so? Was Centurion Cornelius the
first Gentile convert straight to Christianity or was he already proselyte like
the Ethiopian? Peter doesn’t treat him as a Jewish proselyte (cf. Acts 10:22,
28) and although Luke refers to him as “God-fearing” [4] it would seem that he
was what we would consider a friend or an adherent. That would be like in The
Salvation Army the difference between a soldier and an adherent. A solider
doesn't drink or smoke and is allowed to wear a uniform but an adherent isn't.
A Jewish soldier, proselyte, convert, likewise would be circumcised but an
adherent wouldn't. Does that make sense? Accepting that the Ethiopian was a
proselyte, the very fact that Luke did not portray Philip as having the same
aversion to the Ethiopian as Peter did to the Roman Centurion leads us to the
conclusion that Cornelius falls into a separate category from the Ethiopian. He
probably was neither a Jew nor a proselyte; he was likely an adherent to the
ancient Israelite faith and he was probably the first person to convert to
Christianity without becoming a Jew. So this raises a couple of more questions
that will have undoubtedly raced to your mind as you were reading through Acts
this week.
2)
Do Gentiles who accept Christ need to
follow Jewish rules?
Now, in Acts 10 it is recorded that Peter
saw “the heavens 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 trivial to Jews: they
are a matter of survival and identity” [5] and here Peter is told to totally
disregard them.
From this Peter declares, “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 Gentile Christians 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, Acts 15:19-20, then
with stipulations, concurs “…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.” So do Gentiles who accept Christ need to follow Jewish rules? No.
Christian Gentiles don’t need to – and really should not – follow Jewish rules
but that brings us to another question:
3)
Do Christian Jews need to follow
Jewish rules?
We remember, Mark 7:19, that even prior to
Peter’s vision, Jesus had already abolished the food laws. No doubt Peter was
present when Jesus insisted that it is not what goes into someone’s stomach
that defiles them but what comes out of one’s heart. [7] Jesus, Mark records,
at that time declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19). Jesus abolished the dietary
Laws. So then do Christian Jews need to follow Jewish rituals? No! The NT is
very clear that they do not and Paul even suggests in Galatians 3-5 that if
they do than they are not Christians. Christians do not and should not follow
the tradition of the Jewish Law.
Let's review our questions of today.
1) Does this pericope, Acts 10, recall the first time that the Gospel
(Good News of Salvation) is accepted by the non-Jewish Gentiles? Yes. It is
very likely the first time Gentiles became Christians without also first
becoming Jews.
2) Do Gentile Christians need to follow Jewish rules? No.
3) Do Jewish Christians need to follow Jewish rules? No.
4) What does this all mean to us today?
Of primary significance to this passage
seems to be God’s plan to allow Gentiles to experience the blessing of
salvation without first becoming circumcised Jews (cf. 10:44; 11:15-18;
15:8-11).[8] God dealt equally directly with Peter, a Jew, and Cornelius, a
Gentile. The Good News is to be brought to the Gentiles and everyone 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). There is no difference between Jews and
Gentiles. In layman’s terms, if Jews love God and therefore become Christians
they ‘go to heaven’; if not, they don’t. And if Gentiles love God and become
Christians they ‘go to heaven’; if not, they don’t (TSA Doc 11) and if you and
I love Christ than we will spend eternity with him. This is the Good News,
Romans 10:13: anyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved.
So today if you haven't yet, I invite you to
call on the name of the Lord and be saved. If there is anything preventing you
from entering into a holy relationship with Jesus Christ our Saviour, if there
is I would invite you to leave those with God now at the Mercy Seat.
---
[1] Will Durant, Caesar and Christ. (TSC 3:
New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1944), p. 522.
[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
