Acts 10:34-43 records the message of Peter to those gathered at the home of Cornelius. At this point in the story of the early church in Acts, we are seeing an expansion of the mission of the church. It has focused upon witnessing to the Jewish people and the people of Samaria. With this story, we see that Peter, the same man heading up the mission to the Jewish people, acts as a bridge to the Gentile world. He works with a Roman soldier who is part of the occupying army. To this Gentile audience, he does not quote the Jewish scripture, yet he still offers a powerful witness. Instead, he focuses upon the way Jesus lived his life in care for others. At the same time, we must admit that Peter is hardly excited about this mission! The Spirit of God drags him into this mission. In a sense, two conversions occur, the obvious one of Cornelius and his household, but the less obvious conversion of Peter to expanding the mission of the young church. We must also commend him for seeing the new direction the Spirit was leading the church. Peter shares the basic proclamation (kerygma) of the early church in verses 37—41 concerning Jesus. Yet, what Jesus has taught him as a Jewish person is that God does not lift one group of humanity over another. He even has another version of the great commission. He will stress that the mission of the church embraces humanity, for Christ is Lord of all. All people may receive forgiveness. The past can hold us in bondage, like a prison. We can carry our prison around with us wherever we go. We need freedom from the past when it has become a prison for us in the present.
Acts 10:34-43 is the fifth scene of the larger story of the conversion of Cornelius and his household that we find in Acts 10:1-11:18. I offer a brief reminder. It would be highly appropriate for the traditional view of Luke to be the writer of the two-volume work. Based on Colossians 4:10-14, Luke, “the beloved physician,” was a Gentile. Luke and Acts, comprising more than one-fourth of the NT, might then have been the only NT books written by a Gentile follower of Jesus. We should also note that Peter does not have a direct quote from scripture as he does in earlier speeches, showing sensitivity to the context of the audience. Although the primary mission of Peter was to the Jewish people, this story shows that Peter reached out to at least one Gentile, Cornelius. Geographically, Peter has now travelled to Caesarea, west of Galilee, to the province of Syria. This extension of God’s fellowship to the Gentiles is a truly momentous event, as it opened the door for the Gentile ministries of both Peter and Paul, which led to the urban growth of the Christian movement throughout the Roman Empire. This story raises an interesting question. Is God converting a Gentile into the faith community, or is God converting Peter into seeing new possibilities for mission? In the previous scene, Peter has shared the gospel, and the Gentiles present received the gift of the Holy Spirit in the same way the Jewish people did in Acts 2.
Such conversion comes about not because of competent leadership, scriptural interpretation, or persuasive preaching. The hand of God drags along Peter, Cornelius, and the church. There are no calculating efforts by the Jerusalem church, no strategic planning by Peter, no manipulation of the scriptural witness by Cornelius and the Gentiles. Conversion is an astonishing, unanticipated act of God's grace.
34 Then Peter began to speak to them: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation (ἔθνει) anyone who fears God and does what is right. Peter’s words would have shocked most Jews and Gentiles, in part because his words upset their distinctions. Many Gentiles in the Mediterranean world believed that Jews were unusually ascetic and sober in their moral behavior and odd in insisting on Sabbath rest and in believing in but one God. Many Jews believed that God had chosen Jews alone as his special people; they also assumed that most Gentiles had filthy morals, corresponding to their “adulterous” belief in multiple gods. In a manner like our time, tribalism often prevailed, with many in-group and out-group perceptions and consequent antipathy between various groups of people. clearly Peter has in mind something other than obedience to the covenant. He does not require a specific knowledge of the Law and the God of Israel. Such a person is acceptable to God. We are to think of a sacrifice that God finds acceptable. Such a view would have gone against most of the Old Testament, which viewed Israel as the unique possession of the Lord. However, Isaiah 56:7 prophecies that even Gentile offerings will be acceptable to God. What they offer is proper respect to God and proper respect to their fellow human being. The point is not about the possibility of salvation outside of Christian confession.Plainly, there are behavioral, if not national, qualifiers to establish those who are "acceptable." Peter's confession is still profoundly dramatic. This concept of a God who shows "no favorites" gives tangible teeth to the Jewish insistence that there is only one universal God. It is one thing to proclaim your God is no mere tribal or local deity. It is quite another to admit that "your" God is as concerned and interested in distant tribes and peoples as those who first proclaimed God's oneness and understood clearly at last. This statement reflects “biblical universalism,” in that the general human situation is one in which all people live in the light of life.[1] That God shows no partiality means that nobody has the edge, that all people are equal before God and none are “more equal” than others; nor is there any hint of a “separate but equal” doctrine, rather, the only litmus test that counts is whatever Jesus administers in the human heart. God is not an accepter/respecter of one person or group of people over another and thereby does not show favoritism; God looks beyond outward appearances. In the context of Luke-Acts, this is a strong message to followers of Jesus (then and now) that they/we are to see people with God’s eyes, and not rank them by our human biases or perceptions, whether religious, ethnic, or otherwise. We are not to exclude them from being worthy of hearing and responding to God’s message and way through Jesus Christ. For example, the Deuteronomist can be clear that the heavens and earth belong to the Lord, that the Lord has special love for Israel and chose them as a people, while yet showing no partiality (Deuteronomy 10:14-19). III Isaiah announces that the Lord will gather people from all nations and languages to see the glory of the Lord. The remnant of the people of Israel shall disperse to distant lands and proclaim the glory of the Lord among the nations. All will come to the holy mountain in Jerusalem and bring their offerings. Humanity will bow down before the Lord. (Isaiah 66:18-24). Consistent with such a vision in the Old Testament, the risen Lord commanded the disciples to make disciples among all nations (Matthew 28:18-20). Paul makes it clear as well that God shows no favoritism, for whether one has the special revelation of Torah by which to live, or whether one lives by the principle of conscience, all persons unite in their sin by knowing what is right and failing to do it (Romans 2:11-18). Paul also affirms no difference exists between Jew and Gentile, for all who call upon the Lord shall receive salvation (Romans 10:12-13). In two other passages, Paul will set aside other divisions as will. The people of God are one in Christ, setting aside human divisions like Jew and Gentile, slave and free, or the even the created difference of male and female (Galatians 3:26-29). Since Christ is all and in all, the people of God cannot allow difference such as Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free to divide them (Colossians 3:11). Peter will add that Christians call in prayer upon their Father who judges all persons impartially (I Peter 1:17).
Peter then defines the gospel concisely. 36 You know the message (λόγον) he sent to the people (υἱοῖς, sons or children) of Israel, preaching (εὐαγγελιζόμενος, proclaiming the gospel of) peace by Jesus Christ— stating the core confession of Peter, that he is Lord (Κύριος) of all. Again, stressing that the message stretches beyond Israel., The expression “Lord of all” is one we find in classical religions with reference to Zeus; in Hellenistic religions with reference to Osiris, the revered Egyptian god; and in Roman political discourse with reference to Caesar.[2] Luke is expanding what the faith community has already affirmed: that Jesus Christ is Lord! The Lordship of Jesus is over all of creation. Therefore, in any nation anyone who fears God and does what is right is acceptable. The affirmation that Jesus is Lord does not come from a text quoted throughout the Law and the Prophets. Rather, the affirmation is a theological truth rising out of the experience and faith of the disciples. Recounting the same incidents of other earlier speeches, Peter concludes with his freshly obtained new perception of the movement of the gospel. The early church did not adhere to the pattern in the synagogue. Among the primary concerns of the early church was to make the God of Israel, the God who inspired the prophets, available to people outside the Jewish circle. Yet, the Holy Spirit had to drag Peter along in some areas. If Jesus Christ is Lord, though, then we should expect surprises and new implications of the gospel that we can explain on no other basis than that the Risen Lord has shown something we could not have seen on our own. 37 That message (ῥῆμα)spread throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John announced (ἐκήρυξεν): 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, how he went about doing good and healing all who the devil oppressed, for God was with him. Peter puts the knowledge of Jesus at beginning with his public ministry rather than with the birth narratives, as Luke has himself begun with his gospel. Jesus truly is the man for others, as he offered sympathy, help, deliverance, mercy, and solidarity with the fate of humanity. His humanity consists in the fact that he is “for” humanity, thereby fulfilling his saving work.[3] 39 We are witnesses (μάρτυρες) to all that he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; Peter testifies to the real, agonizing death that Jesus suffered. He uses the language and images from Deuteronomy 21:22-23 -- "hanging him on a tree" -- to depict the contempt and cursedness associated with the death of Jesus by crucifixion. 40 However, God raised him on the third day, a phrase we find also find in I Corinthians 15:4, echoing Hosea 6:2 and Jonah 2:1, and allowed him to appear, 41 not to all the people but to us who God chose as witnesses (μάρτυσιν), and who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. Here is one of the reasons that the Lord’s Supper was so central to the gathering of Christians.[4] The apostles were witnesses to Jesus' earthly ministry and to the stunning events of the Cross and Resurrection. Coupled with his previous revelation that God shows no partiality between Jew and Gentile, the Christ-event now stands before Peter and Cornelius as a common bond. Christ's triumph over death and his saving resurrection were not just for the obedient of Israel. They were gifts of the offer of universal salvation for all nations. 42 He commanded us, in a version of the great commission, to preach (κηρύξαι) to the people and to testify fully or thoroughly (διαμαρτύρασθαι) that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead. Jesus looked for the judgment of the Son of Man, which the New Testament then applied to Jesus. Yet, the New Testament looks upon God as the judge. Yes, he is judge of all, but Peter quickly moves to the notion that[5] 43 all the prophets testify (μαρτυροῦσιν) about him that everyone who believes in him, including persons from all over the world, receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Early Christianity quickly related baptism to the forgiveness of sin.[6] Similar passages include those in Revelation 5:9-10 and 14:6 (“Then I saw another angel flying in midheaven, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth — to every nation and tribe and language and people”).
Established religion has many gifts. It can offer expertise based upon centuries of experience and tradition. Yet, it can also develop practices that limit the gospel message. However, I think this passage today opens the door for an important discussion. It shows that institutional religion, as it develops expertise, also tends to put limits on its mission and more importantly on God. When Peter saw that God showed no partiality, he also saw that it meant a change in the mission of the church. The love of God for human beings has no limits.
There are many examples of partial, limited love. Three examples of limited love come to mind.
Loving the lovable. Such love is important. It would say something dreadful about our character if we treated the easily loved as if they were weak and therefore easily abused physically or emotionally. However, too often, the only love we can manage loves the lovable, by which we usually mean the attractive, pleasing, and gifted that easily wins the affection of others. By definition, a lovable person is not hard to love. Yet, even here, some people are of such twisted character that they cannot even do that! However, we need to ask, Does God call us only to love the lovable? Jesus says, "Love your neighbor as yourself." He does not add the exception, "that is, if your neighbor happens to be lovable." A love like that would be shallow. Therefore, that is one type of partial love: loving only the lovable.
Reciprocal love. Another type of partial love is all about gauging our love according to the possibility of receiving love in return. This is reciprocal love: "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Many human relationships are like that. It is a fine and helpful thing for two people to decide they are going to come together and meet each other's needs. Often, we refer to this sort of love as a "partnership," highlighting the even exchange. The ability to practice such transactional relationships is important. It shows awareness of the needs of others and a need within oneself. Yet, this, too, is only a partial love. What happens, for example, if one partner gets sick and is unable for a time to care for the partner's needs? Does the love-partnership fall apart at that point? Some do. An important relationship that has this dimension is marriage. It would be a sick marriage if one partner carries the weight of the relationship in giving love but never receives. A marriage needs to have that mutuality of love, friendship, and affection. However, any marriage that gets into keeping score is already heading for trouble. There are times and seasons, in some marriages, in some deep friendships, when one partner does end up carrying more of the weight of the relationship. God did not intend marriage or friendship to be that way, of course, but sometimes that is just the way it is. The truth is that, if we are in a reciprocal relationship, there is always the temptation to engage in scorekeeping.
Controlling love. The final type of partial love is controlling love. A positive side of this is that such love exhibited from parent to child is part of educating the child. The parent teaches practical matters such as the danger of crossing the street or the danger of fire and knives out of love. Yet, we know people who seek control through love: a spouse or a parent or someone else. An element of control often makes its way into human relationships. In such relationships, one offers love for a time, free and clear, then abruptly snatch it away. Afterwards, one usually keeps such love in storage, bringing it out the next time the controlling lover has need of it.
Controlling love, too, falls short of the full measure of love, the biblical ideal. Controlling love is not the type of love we see God exercising in the Bible. You would think it would be just that way, in the uneven power-relationship of an omnipotent God and a frail and flawed people. Nevertheless, it is not. The track of God's love for Israel -- several millennia long but still in effect -- has had some rocky interludes. Even on their epic journey through the wilderness, the people of Israel sometimes acted foolishly and disobediently. God had to dispatch the prophets, one by one, to call them back to faithfulness. Were God's love controlling them, that never would have happened. However, God's love is never a controlling love. The Lord values human freedom, knowing there are going to be times -- lots of times, to be perfectly honest -- when we will greedily snatch up that freedom, then go out and abuse it.
Therefore, Peter now perceives that the chosen people include everybody.
“I truly understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. Acts 10:34-35
Each of these forms of love may have their place. They are examples of love. Human beings universally recognize love as a good thing to have, give, and receive. Even in partial form, they are good. Loving the loveable is shallow, but as far as it goes, it remains love. If both partners in reciprocal love deliver, it remains love and is good. Even controlling love may act to keep a loved one out of danger and contribute to a sense of self-worth. So, if these are all partial forms of love, what does complete love look like?
36 You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ—he is Lord of all. 37 That message spread throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John announced: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.-Acts 10:36-38
Jesus gets at this when he teaches, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Can there be a more difficult teaching than that?
In the church today, confessing that Jesus is Lord is mostly a foregone conclusion, but usually with substantial qualifiers attached. “Well, yes,” we say, “of course Jesus is Lord of all, but people have to believe thus and so before he will actually be their Lord.” Or, “He’s your Lord if you are willing to be baptized by immersion.” Or, “If he’s really your Lord, you’ll be tolerant and open-minded.” Or, “Jesus is Lord doesn’t apply to [choose your hated group fanatics / homosexuals / Republicans / Democrats / lazy people / reactionaries / liberals / the deluded / the bigoted / Pharisees] unless they first [your favorite qualifier].” We have fences to maintain. We have litmus tests to administer.
That God shows no partiality means that nobody has the edge, that all people are equal before God and none are “more equal” than others; nor is there any hint of a “separate but equal” doctrine, rather, the only litmus test that counts is whatever Jesus administers in the human heart. As Peter preaches it that day, “the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead” (10:42).
At its best such an approach to religious community means that we take what God has revealed to us and put it into practice.
Good points! I wonder if Christians don't think they are more equal because they are grafted into the Jews. By making the Jews extra special and then placing ourselves as heirs to this we see ourselves as extra special.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if that is the reason, but it is relatively easy to make the transition from witnessing to the grace of God in Jesus Christ to shifting the focus to us who witness. We need to exercise some care because as individuals and communities we do have a special mission to share what God has done.
Delete