S T O T T B I B L E S T U D Y

Acts 11:1-18 - Peter justifies his actions
Acts 9:32-11:18 - 6). Lessons to learn
Acts 11:19-12:24 - Expansion and opposition

The news that *the Gentiles also had received the word of God* spread far and wide. *The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea* heard about it. It was understandable that, just as the apostles needed to endorse the evangelization of the Samaritans who `had accepted the word of God' (8:14), so now they were concerned about the conversion and baptism of the first Gentiles, who had similarly received it (1). Not that they summoned Peter to give an account of himself. Luke writes only that *Peter went up to Jerusalem* of his own accord (2). And the editor of the Bezan text, anxious to put this beyond question, added that Peter had `for a considerable time wished to journey to Jerusalem', that he eventually did so on his own initiative, and that he `reported to them the grace of God'. At all events, on arrival at Jerusalem, *the circumcised believers criticised him* for having entered *the house of uncircumcised men* and having eaten with them (3). Some have suggested that Peter's critics were the `circumcision party' (JBP), that is, `the right wing of Jewish Christians', `the extremists' or `the rigorists'. But the Greek phrase need only mean `those who were of Jewish birth' (NEB), namely the whole Christian community of Jerusalem, all of whom up to that time were Jews. Recent events in Caesarea had naturally disturbed them. In verses 4-17 Peter *explained everything to them precisely as it had happened* (4). In fact Luke now rehearses the whole story a second time, but more briefly, with a different order of events, and through the lips of Peter. Luke's own narrative had followed the chronology of the four days, beginning with Cornelius' vision of the angel. Peter, however, because he is recounting things as he himself experienced them, begins with his own vision of the sheet, and does not mention Cornelius' vision until the fourth day, when he heard it from Cornelius' lips (although the three men from Cornelius had already mentioned it, 10:22). Peter's order of events is important because it helps us to live through his experience with him, and so to learn just how God had shown him that he should not call anybody impure or unclean (10:28). It took four successive hammer-blows of divine revelation before his racial and religious prejudice was overcome, as he explains to the Jerusalem church. First came the *divine vision* (4-10) of the sheet containing animals, reptiles and birds. In verse 6 the *wild beast* are an addition, and so is Peter's statement that he `looked into' the sheet `intently' (NEB). The vision was followed by the voice which gave Peter the startling order to *Get up...Kill and eat* and, after his protest, rebuked him that he was not to *call anything impure that God has made clean*. The whole vision, including the order and the rebuke, was repeated three times, so that the heavenly voice addressed him six times altogether with the same basis message. In consequence, Peter grasped that the clean and unclean animals (a distinction which Jesus had abolished) (Mk. 7:19) were a symbol of clean and unclean, circumcised and uncircumcised persons. As Rackham put it, `the sheet is the church', which will `contain all races and classes without any distinction at all', even though the full import of this dawned on Peter only later.

The second hammer-blow was *the divine command* (11-12) to accompany the three men who had come from Caesarea to fetch him. For `at that very moment' (RSV), immediately after the vision had ended, Cornelius' men arrived at Peter's house, and the Spirit told him to go with them without hesitation or distinction (12), even though they were uncircumcised Gentiles. Indeed *these six brothers*, who were now with Peter in Jerusalem, had previously escorted him from Joppa to Caesarea (10:23), and so were witnesses of what had taken place. With Peter they made a group of seven, which William Barclay thought was significant, for `in Egyptian law, which the Jews would know well, seven witnesses were necessary completely to prove a case', while `in Roman law, which they would also know well, seven seals were necessary to authenticate a really important document like a will'. The third hammer-blow was *the divine preparation (13-14). That is, as Peter and his party entered Cornelius' house, Cornelius told them how God had prepared him for his visit. An angel had appeared to him and told him to send to Joppa for Simon Peter, who would bring him a message of salvation. In Luke's own account the content of Cornelius' message to Peter had not been mentioned (10:5-6, 22, 32-33), but Peter knew what the angel had led Cornelius to expect. As Peter retold to the Jerusalem church the story of the two visions, he must have been freshly impressed by the chronology. For God had been working at both ends, in Cornelius and in Peter, deliberately arranging for them to meet, and preparing for it by granting to each on successive days a special, independent and appropriate vision. He told Cornelius in Caesarea, to send for Peter in Joppa, and Peter in Joppa to go to Cornelius in Caesarea, and he perfectly synchronized the two events. Haenchen thinks that Luke overdoes God's supernatural interventions, that he thereby `virtually excludes all human decision' and turns the obedience of faith into `very nearly the twitching of puppets'. But this is unfair. To be sure, the divine intervention is plain, in the lives of both Cornelius and Peter, but neither of them was manipulated in such a way as to bypass his mind or will. On the contrary, they reflected on what they saw and heard, interpreted its significance, and deliberately chose to obey.

The fourth and final revelation to Peter was *the divine action* (15-17). For as Peter *began to speak*, or at least (since commentators warn us not to take this semitic construction too literally) while he was speaking (10:44), *the Holy Spirit came on them* just as, indeed, *he had come on us at he beginning*. It was the extraordinary similarity of the two events which stuck him. He remembered what the risen Jesus had said after his resurrection (1:5), namely *John baptised with water, but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit*. In other words, this was the Gentile Pentecost in Caesarea, corresponding to the Jewish Pentecost in Jerusalem. Here, then, were the four divine hammer-blows which were all aimed deftly at Jewish racial prejudice, and especially at Peter's - the vision, the command, the preparation and the action. Together they demonstrated conclusively that God had now welcomed believing Gentiles into his family on equal terms with believing Jews. Peter was convinced. He at once drew the correct deduction from the fact that God had given the same gift of the Spirit to Gentiles as to Jews. He asked two rhetorical questions. The first was at the time: `Can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have' (10:47). The second he addressed to his critics in Jerusalem: `If God gave them the same gift as he gave to us..., who was I to think that I could oppose God?, (11:17). Both questions were unanswerable. And they were the more striking because both contain an almost identical Greek expression, namely *dynatai kolysai* (10:47) and *dynatos kolysai* (11:17), literally `able to forbid, refuse or prevent'. Water baptism could not be forbidden to these Gentile converts, because God could not be forbidden to do what he had done, namely give them Spirit-baptism. The argument was irrefutable. Peter had been `confronted with a divine *fait accompli'*. To be sure, to give Christian baptism to an uncircumcised Gentile was a bold, innovative step, but to withhold it would be to `stand in God's way' (NEB). If Peter had been convinced by the evidence, so now was the Jerusalem church: *they had no further objections* (literally, `they remained silent') *and praised God.* As F.F.Bruce neatly puts it, `their criticism ceased; their worship began'. And they had good reason to glorify God for, they concluded, *God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life* (11:18).

Acts 9:32-11:18 - 6) Lessons to learn

Luke tells the story of the conversion of Cornelius with great dramatic skill. But has it any abiding significance? Thereare no Roman centurions in the world today, and Gentiles have been full members of the church for centuries. So has this incident any more than a historical - even antiquarian - interest? Yes, it speaks directly to some modern questions about the church, the Holy Spirit, non-Christian religions and the gospel.

a) The unity of the church
The fundamental emphasis of the Cornelius story is that, since God does not make distinction in his new society, we have no liberty to make them either. Yet, tragic as it is, the church has never learned irrevocably the truth of its own unity or of the equality of its members in Christ. Even Peter himself, despite the fourfold divine witness he had received, later had a bad lapse in Antioch, withdrew from fellowship with believing Gentiles and had to be publicly opposed by Paul (Gal.2:11ff). Even then, the circumcision party continued their propaganda, and the Council of
Jerusalem had to be called to settle the issue (Acts 15). Even after that, the same ugly sin of discrimination has kept reappearing in the church, in the form of racism (colour prejudice), nationalism (`my country, right or wrong'), tribalism in Africa and casteism in India, social and cultural snobbery (Jas.2:1ff), or sexism (discriminating against women). All such discrimination is inexcusable even in non-Christian society; in the Christian community it is both an obscenity (because offensive to human dignity) and a blasphemy (because offensive to God who accepts without discrimination all who repent and believe). Like Peter, we have to learn that `God does not show favouritism' (10:34).

b) The gift of the Spirit
Luke whose keen interest in the ministry of the Holy Spirit we have already noted, gives much prominence to him in the Cornelius story. This rebukes those Christians who overlook or underplay his work today. Even if the speech in foreign languages, which characterized both the Jewish and the Gentile Pentecost (2:4; 10:46), is not a universal Christian blessing, the gift of the Spirit himself is. Yet this story also poses awkward questions to those who insist on a two-stage Christian initiation, since it is certain that Luke is describing Cornelius' conversion, and not his second, post-conversion baptism of the Spirit. For Peter preached the gospel to him, and Cornelius is said to have repented (11:18) and believed (15:7, 9). What he experienced is also called interchangeably either `receiving' the gift of the Spirit (10:45, 47; 11:17) or being `baptized' with the Spirit (11:16). In fact, Cornelius' water-baptism signified and sealed the total salvation (11:14) which God had given him, including both the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit (10:43, 45), as on the Day of Pentecost (2:38).

c) The status of non-Christian religions
The story of Cornelius has developed a fresh importance in relation to the new pluralism of many societies and the contemporary assessment of non-Christian religions. Some argue that it is `perhaps the most powerful pointer to the inclusiveness of God's saving activity' and contains statements which are `important clues for a Christian understanding of the status before God of those who are not Christians in our day'. We, need, therefore, to examine carefully this `pointer' and these `clues'.

It is true that Luke describes Cornelius as a `devout' (*eusebes*, `godly') and `God-fearing' man, who `gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly' (10:2). Later his own servants portray him as `a righteous [dikaios] and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people' (10:22), while Peter includes him among those who `fear God and do what is right' (10:35). More than this, God is represented as being pleased with him. His prayers and gifts had `come up as a memorial offering before God' (10:4, 31). This phrase `memorial offering' translates *mnemosynos*, a sacrificial word used in the LXX of the so-called `memorial portion' of an offering which was burned. Does this mean that Cornelius' prayers and alms had been `accepted as a sacrifice in the sight of God' (31, JB)? And what did Peter mean when he stated that God `accepts' (*dektos*) in every nation those `who fear him and do what is right' (10:35)? What kind of `acceptability' to God is implied by this word *dektos* and by the use of sacrificial imagery in 10:4 and 31? One possibility is that *dektos* refers to the acceptance called `justification', but that fearing God and doing right (35) are `not meritorious conditions or prerequisites to the experience of divine grace, but its fruits and evidences', and that Peter is describing believers rather than unbelievers (as, for example, Paul does in Rom.2:10). The emphasis then is that God accepts whoever fears him and does right, not irrespective of their faith in Jesus (because they have believed and now show their faith by their works), but irrespective of their race and rank. The essential meaning is that whatever is acceptable to God in one race is acceptable in any other. An alternative explanation, however, seems to me fit the context better, This is that *dektos* means not `accepted' in the absolute sense of justification, but `acceptable' in a comparative sense, because in everybody God prefers righteousness to unrighteousness and sincerity to insincerity, and in the case of Cornelius God provided for him to hear the saving gospel. What Peter emphatically did not mean is that anybody of anynation or religion who is devout ('fears God') and upright (`does right') is thereby justified. Calvin rightly dismisses this notion as `an exceedingly childish error'. Not only does it contradict Paul's gospel, which Luke faithfully echoes in the Acts, but it is refuted by the rest of the Cornelius story. For this devout, God-fearing, upright, sincere and generous man still needed to hear the gospel, to repent (11:18) and to believe in Jesus (15:7). Only then did God in his grace (15:11) save him (11:14, 15:11), give him forgiveness of sins (10:43), the gift of the Spirit (10:45; 15:8) and life (11:18), and purify his heart by faith (15:9). Moreover, only then was he baptized and thus visibly and publicly received into the Christian community. It is, then, a misuse of Acts 10 and 11 to suggest that already before he heard Peter, Cornelius was in right relationship with God, or `justified'. The essence of the story is that (negatively) God shows no favouritism (10:34) and makes no distinction between races (10:20, 29; 11:12; 15;9), and that (positively) he gave and gives the same Spirit to all alike, not irrespective of faith, but irrespective of circumcision.

d) The power of the gospel
Luke has now recounted the conversions of Saul and Cornelius. The differences between these two men were considerable. In race Saul was a Jew, Cornelius a Gentile; in culture Saul was a scholar, Cornelius a soldier; in religion Saul was a bigot, Cornelius a seeker. Yet both were converted by the gracious initiative of God; both received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit; and both were baptized and welcomed into the Christian family on equal terms. This fact a signal testimony to the power and impartiality of the gospel of Christ, which is still `the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes; first the Jew, then for the Gentile' (Rom. 1:16).

Acts 11:19-12:24 - Expansion and opposition

Luke ended his previous section with the words `then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life' (18), RSV). It was an epoch-making declaration by the conservative Jewish leaders of the Jerusalem church. As Peter had become convinced by circumstantial evidence that God intended Gentiles to be welcomed into the redeemed community, so Peter's critics had been convinced by his rehearsal of the evidence. God himself had put the matter beyond dispute by bestowing his Spirit on a Gentile household. The inclusion of the Gentiles is to be Luke's main theme in the remainder of Acts, and with chapter 13 he begins to chronicle Paul's missionary exploits. Before this, however, he gives his readers two vignettes, which form a transition between the conversion of the first Gentile (through Peter) and the systematic evangelization of the Gentiles (by Paul). The first (11:19-30) depicts the expansion of the church northwards, as a result of evangelistic activity by anonymous missionaries. The scene is Antioch, and Paul figures in the story, although Barnabas is more prominent. The second (12:1-25) depicts opposition to the church by King Herod Agrippa 1, who concentrates his attack on members of the apostolic circle. The scene is Jerusalem, and Peter occupies the centre of the stage. In fact, this is Luke's final Peter-story before his leadership role is taken over by Paul, and Jerusalem is eclipsed by the goal of Rome.

1) Expansion: the church in Antioch (11:19-30)
The key expression at the end of the last paragraph was `to the Gentiles also' (18, RSV); the key expression of this paragraph is `to the Greeks also' (20, RSV) The addition in both verses of `also' (*kai*) is important. It is not that the evangelization of the Jews must stop, but that the evangelization of the Gentiles must begin. As Paul was later to write (it was almost a refrain in the early chapters of Romans, the gospel was intended `first for the Jew, then for the Gentile' (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10; cf. 3:29; 9:24; 10:12; 1Cor.1:24; Col.3:11.).

Acts 11:19-21
a) The Greek mission is initiated by unnamed evangelists.
Luke has written in 8:1 that, as a result of the persecution which broke out after Stephen's martyrdom, `all except the apostles were scattered [*diesparesan*] throughout Judea and Samaria'. He now resumes his narrative: *Now those who had been scattered (diasparentes) by the persecution in connection with Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch* (19a). In both cases he represents this fanning out of believers as a Christian `diaspora' or dispersion. In both cases the result was the same, namely that `those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went' (8:4), *telling the message* (19b). And in both cases he leaves the evangelists unnamed, except for stating that they were not apostles (8:1) and mentioning Philip (8:5ff).

Luke now shows how the outward movement of the gospel expanded in two ways, geographical and cultural. Geographically, the mission spread north beyond `Judea and Samaria' (8:1b) *as far as Phoenicia*, corresponding to Lebanon today, the island of *Cyprus* and the city of Syrian *Antioch* (19). Culturally, the mission spread beyond Jews to Gentiles. Most of the missionaries were *telling the message only to Jews*, `to Jews only and to no others' (19c,NEB). *Some of them, however, men* who came *from Cyprus* (which incidentally was Barnabas's home, 4:36) *and Cyrene* on the North African coast (did they perhaps include `Lucius of Cyrene' mentioned in 13:1)? *went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus* (20), proclaiming Jesus, that is, not now as `the Christ', but as `the Lord'. Moreover their bold innovation was richly blessed by God, for *the Lord's hand was with them* (his power confirming his word), so that *a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord* (21) in that combination of repentance and faith which is commonly called `conversion'. Some speculate that Luke himself was one of these converts, because the Western text introduces verse 28 with the words `when *we* were gathered together', indicating that Luke was present, and because a tradition can be traced back to the end of the second century that Luke was a native of Antioch. Is it certain, however, that these `daring spirits, did evangelize Greeks in Antioch, and not just Hellenists, that is, Greek-speaking Jews? This question has long occupied scholars. The
slightly better attested reading of verse 20 is not *Hellenas*, `Greeks, but *Hellenistas*, `Hellenists'. So who were they? The word itself (*Hellenistes*) does not tell us, for it `is found nowhere in previous Greek literature or in Hellenistic-Jewish literature', writes Dr Bruce Metzger, and `in the New Testament it occurs only here and in 6:1 and 9:29'. All that can be affirmed with confidence is that it `appears to be a new formation from *hellenizein*, "to speak Greek" or "to
practise Greek ways"'; it thus indicates the culture of the people in question, but not their nationality. If, then, the meaning of the word is in itself uncertain, the context must decide. Yet even this is to a degree ambiguous. Some argue that the contrast between `only to Jews' (19) and `to Greeks also' (20) settles the matter. There would have been nothing remarkable about preaching to Greek-speaking Jews, for it had been going on from the beginning. It would not have called for a special investigation from Jerusalem. So, they conclude, the context requires us (like most of the church fathers) to take *Hellenistas* as a synonym for *Hellenas* and to translate it `Greeks', `Gentiles', or (NEB, 1961 edition) `pagans'. Others point out, however, that, even if the narrower context is clear (the contrast in verses 18-20 between `only Jews' and `also Greeks'), the wider context is not. There would, in fact, be an anachronism in representing the full-scale Gentile mission as having been pioneered by anonymous evangelists in Antioch, since Luke reserves this innovation to Paul on his first missionary journey (Acts 13). He could hardly have intended to
anticipate it here (Acts 11).

Since there is ambiguity in both word and context, it seems wise to look for a compromise solution between Greek-speaking Jews on the one hand and complete pagans on the other. Linguistically, we can be sure only that *Hellenistas* denotes people whose language and culture are Greek; the word does not indicate their ethnic origin, whether `the person be a Jew or a Roman or any other non-Greek'. It certainly does not require that the person is a Jew. Contextually, Richard Longenecker suggests that the *Hellenistas* were indeed Gentiles, but Gentiles `who had some kind of relationship with Judaism', perhaps `God-fearers'. His conclusion is `that Luke did not look on the Greeks in verse 20 as simply Gentiles unaffected by the influence of Judaism and that he did not view the Hellenistic Christians' approach to them as pre-empting the uniqueness of Paul's later Gentile policy'. Instead *Hellenistas* `is to be understood in the broad sense of "Greek-speaking persons", meaning thereby the mixed population of Antioch in contrast to the *Joudaioi* of verse 19'. It is clear from both Acts 15:1 and Galatians 2:11ff, that in the church of Antioch Jews and Gentiles, the circumcised and the uncircumcised, were at the time enjoying table fellowship with one another. This new outreach took place in *Antioch*, Luke tells us (20), and no more appropriate place could be imagined, either as the venue for the first international church or as the springboard for the world-wide Christian mission. The city was founded in 300 BC by Seleucus Nicator, one of Alexander the Great's generals. He named it `Antioch' after his father Antiochus, and its port, fifteen miles west along the navigable river Orontes, `Seleucia' after himself. Over years it became known as `Antioch the Beautiful' because of its fine buildings, and by Luke's day was famous for its long, paved boulevard, which ran from north to south and was flanked by a double colonnade with trees and fountains. Although it was a Greek city by foundation, its population, estimated as at least 500,000, was extremely cosmopolitan. It had a large colony of Jews, attracted by Seleucus' offer of equal citizenship, and Orientals too from Persia, India and even China, earning it another of its names, `the Queen of the East'. Since it was absorbed into the Roman empire by Pompey in 64BC, and became the capital of the imperial province of Syria (to which Cilicia was later added), its inhabitants included Latins as well. Thus Greeks, Jews, Orientals and Romans formed the mixed multitude of what Josephus called `the third city of the empire', after Rome and Alexandria.

Next Acts 11:22-24. b). The Greek mission is endorsed by Barnabas.