That man Cornelius (3)
We aren’t really taking the scriptures seriously enough if we aren’t looking for the author’s (human and divine) intention. It isn’t enough to say, “What lessons can I draw from this verse or section?” I’m sure everyone would agree that a prior question would be, “What is the point (or points) the Spirit is making in this verse or section?”
It’s a mistake to treat Acts 10 and Cornelius’ conversion to Jesus Christ as though it were there to teach us how everyone becomes a Christian. To treat it like that completely ignores the character of the narrative and Luke’s purpose.
Everything about Acts 10 speaks of "surprise" or even "shock". It isn't "business as usual" we read there. Something new happened, something not believed up to that point so to treat it as if it were just another illustration of God saving a man by grace is to miss the whole tone of the events.
It makes sense that we have a God-loving and righteous Gentile in this case for if he had been a decadent who rejoiced in his scandalous ways Peter would never have come near his house and the man wouldn’t have been concerned to hear what God had in mind for him (Acts 10:22, 33). We must have an uncircumcised Gentile for had he been circumcised he would have been classed as a part of the Jewish covenant people and legitimate heir of Messianic blessings. Had he been a fully-fledged proselyte going to his house would never have been a problem and there would have been no point to the Joppa vision.
God’s bringing Cornelius into Christ was part of his dismantling of the notion that blessing and salvation in Christ was reserved to the physical descendants of Abraham through Jacob. The OT is filled with promises of Messianic blessing which would come to Israel
Cornelius is a “test” case and the question is not, “Are righteous and God-fearing Gentiles accepted by God?” The question is, “Is fellowship and blessing and salvation in the Messiah available to non-Jews?”
It isn’t a question about baptism! [“Do people need to be baptized to be forgiven?”] It isn’t a question about “earning salvation by righteousness! [“Do morally upright people still need forgiveness by grace?”]
These are good questions but they aren’t points of debate in the NT. No one argues about “having” to be baptized—they simply did it because they were told it was to be done in finding forgiveness in Jesus Christ. Everyone taught salvation was by grace—even Jews who thought that that grace was confined to the Jewish connection.
No, the issue that raged in those days was about election. Israel
Everybody knew that decadent Gentiles were out, but what about God-fearing and righteous uncircumcised Gentiles? Cornelius was the case in point. This man had God’s heart’s approval (Peter now knew that more than ever) but could he be received in the elect community of Jesus Christ without becoming a Jew? The descent of the Spirit ended the debate for Peter and that’s when he looks around and wants to know, “Well, which of you would say he is not allowed baptism?”
©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.