Peter and Cornelius
I had a lengthy discussion with my roommate the other night. He had just submitted a sermon on Acts 10 for his homiletics class. He was a bit stumped on a couple of the phrases used when Peter is speaking to Cornelius in vs. 34ff. Today I emailed him with more thoughts on the matter, here it is.
John -
Per our conversation last night, I took a second look at Acts 10. I think it's clear now on the one issue you brought up, i.e. what did Peter mean by "doing good" in his gospel recounting in Acts 10:37-43. Jesus' "doing good" is a descriptive summary of a great portion of Jesus' ministry: healing the sick, preaching to the poor, confronting the enemies of the lost sheep of Israel, etc. It simply describes Jesus' perfect fulfillment of his servant role in accordance with the Father's will, being ever righteous in his assigned task.
Then as to the other passage, Acts 10:34-35, Peter says "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him."
The easy mistake, because of the moralism of our age, is to understand "does what is right" in ethical terms. But that's not what is meant. We can know from the text what Peter is referring to at least in relation to Cornelius.
- Cornelius feared God along with all his household
- He devoutly prayed to Yahweh
- He gave alms to the Jewish people
The "fear of God" was an expression for various Gentiles in the OT who did not necessarily participate in the redemptive hope of Abraham's seed but still had a fearful knowledge of God as creator and sustainer of all things, and *somehow* favors Israel as his people. For example the Egyptian midwives in Exdous 1 saved the Israelite babies because they "feared God" more than Pharaoh's decree, etc.
However Cornelius not only acknowledged God's existence as One to be feared, he prayed to God. He understood that God is sovereign and God is able to save.
Furthermore, Cornelius gave alms to the Jewish people. This activity is clear evidence for the kind of faith in Cornelius: he expectantly participated in the Jewish hope that Israel's God would somehow rescue His people.
Peter has finally understood the much fuller implications of God's kingdom being received by faith in Christ; the just shall live by faith, not by works of the Law and not by bloodline. The kingdom is granted to sinners, Gentiles even!, who take hold of the promise by *faith*. Cornelius' devout activities were outward evidences that he possessed an OT-kind of faith, though he was outside the Law. He lived according to the Abrahamic promise.
So, while God shows no partiality with respect to the nations or sinners, faith is absolutely necessary (though it only be instrumental). Jesus wasn't arbitrary with his miraculous signs and his promising of the kingdom, it was the sinners who somehow evidenced faith to which the kingdom promises were extended.
And this last point is important since, as you have brought out already, the things happening in places like Acts 10 are at the "hinge" history of salvation. The case of Cornelius cannot be cited as a theological proof that in soteriology faith logically precedes regeneration/salvation/etc. Rather it is an example of the ministerial pattern during the time "between the ages", when great anticipation of the Messianic hope was still among scattered inviduals throughout the land, while the new covenant giving of the Holy Spirit had just begun under the apostolic ministry. Cornelius is where the old and the new meet, and the old is swallowed up by the new just as promise is swallowed up by fulfillment.
In like manner, Jesus' ministry cannot be abstracted from its redemptive historical circumstances. Jesus was roaming the cities and countrysides, on the one hand he was promiscuously preaching the kingdom of God, but also in particular he was seeking out true Israel in order to release her from spiritual bondage. That is why he would wait, or inquire, or dialogue in such strange ways in order to get a confession of faith out of people *before* he pronounced blessing or healed or forgave sin. He was not there to fulfill the sinful expectations of Israel as a whole, he was there to announce salvation to his people, broken sinners and lost sheep who eagerly hung on the Abrahamic promises that God would somehow establish his people forever through the eternal son of David who would be their king and savior.
I had a lengthy discussion with my roommate the other night. He had just submitted a sermon on Acts 10 for his homiletics class. He was a bit stumped on a couple of the phrases used when Peter is speaking to Cornelius in vs. 34ff. Today I emailed him with more thoughts on the matter, here it is.
John -
Per our conversation last night, I took a second look at Acts 10. I think it's clear now on the one issue you brought up, i.e. what did Peter mean by "doing good" in his gospel recounting in Acts 10:37-43. Jesus' "doing good" is a descriptive summary of a great portion of Jesus' ministry: healing the sick, preaching to the poor, confronting the enemies of the lost sheep of Israel, etc. It simply describes Jesus' perfect fulfillment of his servant role in accordance with the Father's will, being ever righteous in his assigned task.
Then as to the other passage, Acts 10:34-35, Peter says "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him."
The easy mistake, because of the moralism of our age, is to understand "does what is right" in ethical terms. But that's not what is meant. We can know from the text what Peter is referring to at least in relation to Cornelius.
- Cornelius feared God along with all his household
- He devoutly prayed to Yahweh
- He gave alms to the Jewish people
The "fear of God" was an expression for various Gentiles in the OT who did not necessarily participate in the redemptive hope of Abraham's seed but still had a fearful knowledge of God as creator and sustainer of all things, and *somehow* favors Israel as his people. For example the Egyptian midwives in Exdous 1 saved the Israelite babies because they "feared God" more than Pharaoh's decree, etc.
However Cornelius not only acknowledged God's existence as One to be feared, he prayed to God. He understood that God is sovereign and God is able to save.
Furthermore, Cornelius gave alms to the Jewish people. This activity is clear evidence for the kind of faith in Cornelius: he expectantly participated in the Jewish hope that Israel's God would somehow rescue His people.
Peter has finally understood the much fuller implications of God's kingdom being received by faith in Christ; the just shall live by faith, not by works of the Law and not by bloodline. The kingdom is granted to sinners, Gentiles even!, who take hold of the promise by *faith*. Cornelius' devout activities were outward evidences that he possessed an OT-kind of faith, though he was outside the Law. He lived according to the Abrahamic promise.
So, while God shows no partiality with respect to the nations or sinners, faith is absolutely necessary (though it only be instrumental). Jesus wasn't arbitrary with his miraculous signs and his promising of the kingdom, it was the sinners who somehow evidenced faith to which the kingdom promises were extended.
And this last point is important since, as you have brought out already, the things happening in places like Acts 10 are at the "hinge" history of salvation. The case of Cornelius cannot be cited as a theological proof that in soteriology faith logically precedes regeneration/salvation/etc. Rather it is an example of the ministerial pattern during the time "between the ages", when great anticipation of the Messianic hope was still among scattered inviduals throughout the land, while the new covenant giving of the Holy Spirit had just begun under the apostolic ministry. Cornelius is where the old and the new meet, and the old is swallowed up by the new just as promise is swallowed up by fulfillment.
In like manner, Jesus' ministry cannot be abstracted from its redemptive historical circumstances. Jesus was roaming the cities and countrysides, on the one hand he was promiscuously preaching the kingdom of God, but also in particular he was seeking out true Israel in order to release her from spiritual bondage. That is why he would wait, or inquire, or dialogue in such strange ways in order to get a confession of faith out of people *before* he pronounced blessing or healed or forgave sin. He was not there to fulfill the sinful expectations of Israel as a whole, he was there to announce salvation to his people, broken sinners and lost sheep who eagerly hung on the Abrahamic promises that God would somehow establish his people forever through the eternal son of David who would be their king and savior.
posted by Joe Branca | 9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home