7/1/13

From Jim McGuiggan... That man Cornelius (2)


That man Cornelius (2)

 Acts 10:34-35:  
“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.” (NIV) 
“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.” (NRSV) 
The NIV is probably correct to add the “now” because of the entire context. If that’s so then we’re to recognise that if Peter knew that truth before Joppa he knows it now with a new depth. Peter’s “I truly understand” in the NRSV will allow for that, of course, but it isn’t as definitive as the NIV though it stays more closely to the Greek text itself. 
For example, should we take it that prior to the Joppa vision Peter believed God accepted “men from every nation who fear him and do what is right”? If he has gained a deeper understanding of that truth it implies he did formerly believe it to some degree. George Foot Moore in his Judaismin the First Centuries of the Christian Era, Volume 1:279 and Volume 2:385-6 tells us of the differing views of famous Sages on where Gentiles stood with God. It was always clear in the Jewish mind that Jews were the elect of God and that no other nation enjoyed that covenant status; this works well with Amos 3:2. But not everyone held that that meant only Jews could be accepted by God and Peter was one of those who thought—however uncertain he might have been at times—that righteous Gentiles were acceptable to God apart from Judaism.   Edward Sanders in Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE—66CE (page 270) says, “The existence of the category, ‘the righteous of the nations of the world’, shows generosity of spirit, but it also logically follows from the way the Jew thought about their own relation with God. They were in a covenant, and they had obligations. Their God, however, had created the world and had made a covenant with humanity. It must at least be theoretically possible for Gentiles to be in it.”  The evidence is that while you can quote a rabbi here and there who would say that Gentiles were made only to populate hell there is no reason to think that that sort of thing was the dominant view. The OT (unless you read it in hyper-Calvinistic fashion) makes it clear that God recognised righteousness and repentance in non-Jews.  Still, it’s important for a clear understanding of what happened in Acts 10 that we understand what Peter thought when he said, “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.” (NIV)  This appears to say that Cornelius would have fitted into “the righteous Gentile” class that would share in the world to come. I think that that is what he meant, but that is not the same as being elect in Jesus the Messiah. Peter does not regard this man as “in Jesus”. He confesses a deeper understanding of what he formerly understood and that gets him into the house with a raw Gentile (Acts 10:28, and see 11:3) but he still wants to know why he has been sent for (10:29).   Taking this to be a correct assessment of things an important distinction is being made. While Peter is speaking to this wonderful man he thinks the man is accepted by God but he does not think the man is as yet a sharer in the Messiah. Modern Christians don’t think of drawing such distinctions since the prevailing evangelical view is that unless you have heard of Christ and turned to him in faith you are not accepted by God.  Now, I think that the prevailing evangelical view should be that no one is accepted by God apart from the work he has done in Jesus Christ but that is not the same as saying people have to have heard of Jesus Christ in order to be blessed in and through him. Jesus is the way to God but not everyone who is at peace with God has heard that their state of acceptance with God is grounded in Jesus Christ.  Peter stands before a man he believes is right with God but he stands before a man who has not yet been united by faith with Jesus Christ. He has not yet been united by faith in Jesus Christ because up to that time God had not offered the gospel to him; up to that time he hadn’t been offered Jesus Christ; up to that time he hadn’t become part of the “body of Jesus Christ”; up to that time he wouldn’t have known that the Spirit was to be given to all who took the name of Jesus upon them even if they were not circumcised and Torah-observant. He wouldn’t have known it because Peter didn’t know it (nor did his companions or the leaders back at Jerusalem).   Until events like Acts 10 and Paul’s mission work it appears that the prevailing view was that if someone wanted to share the blessings in the Messiah they would have to be circumcised and be Torah-observant (Acts 15:1 illustrates the tension, and see Galatians 5:3).  So, here’s what I think we have in Acts 10. We have a God-loving and righteous Gentile who is accepted by God. This man is now offered a relationship with Jesus Christ by faith. That God wants him to have a relationship with Jesus Christ is made clear since God sends on him the Spirit sent by Jesus Christ (Acts 2:33) which was proof of Christ’s Messiahship and exaltation.  Peter now wants to know who could deny the man baptism into the Christ (10:47) since he has shared in the Spirit given to the Jewish believers.  Was he “saved” apart from baptism? I believe he was “saved” before the Spirit fell on him and I believe he was saved before he was baptized. But that was before he heard the gospel. Once he heard and knew by the Spirit’s arrival that he was being called into Jesus Christ he could not have refused baptism and remained right with God.  Something new was happening between God and him (and he as a model of Gentile inclusion in the Christ). 



©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.