This is the thirty-first
entry in the Bible Junkies Online Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. This
entry deals with the initial meeting between Cornelius and Peter.
For previous entries, please now go to the Complete Acts of the Apostle Commentary, where you can find links to each of the
entries updated after each new blog post.
3. Contents:
E) Preparation for
the Gentile Mission: the Conversions of Paul and Cornelius (9:1-12:25): Cornelius
sends men to fetch Peter (10:17-29):
17 Now while Peter was greatly puzzled
about what to make of the vision that he had seen, suddenly the men sent by
Cornelius appeared. They were asking for Simon’s house and were standing by the
gate. 18 They called out to ask whether Simon, who was called
Peter, was staying there. 19 While Peter was still thinking
about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Look, three men are searching for
you. 20 Now get up, go down, and go with them without
hesitation; for I have sent them.” 21 So Peter went down to the
men and said, “I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for your
coming?” 22 They answered, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright
and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was
directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what
you have to say.” 23 So Peter invited them in and gave them
lodging.
The next day he got up and went with them, and some of the
believers from Joppa accompanied him. 24 The following day they
came to Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his
relatives and close friends. 25 On Peter’s arrival Cornelius
met him, and falling at his feet, worshiped him. 26 But Peter
made him get up, saying, “Stand up; I am only a mortal.” 27 And
as he talked with him, he went in and found that many had assembled; 28 and
he said to them, “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to
associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not
call anyone profane or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I
came without objection. Now may I ask why you sent for me?” (NRSV)
Richard Pervo says of this scene that “the narrative is lively, pivoting
back and forth between the visitors and Peter. Direct speech predominates” (Pervo,
Acts, 271). This is a good overall summation of a scene that can easily
be overlooked, since the only action is Cornelius’s men going to bring Peter to
see their master. The liveliness, though, comes from the interplay of divine
action, which drives the whole narrative of Acts, and the human response,
especially of Peter, as he begins to puzzle out what is taking place. Robert W.
Wall, in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Volume X, states that “several coincidental incidents
occur that that gradually illumine Peter’s understanding of his vision” (Wall, The
New Interpreter’s Bible, 164), except that the point of these incidents is that they
are not coincidental, but directed by God from beginning to end, yet the human participants
must make sense of them and respond to God’s action.
Luke’s first great piece of scene making is to show us Peter still
confused by his vision – “Peter was greatly puzzled about what to make of the
vision” – when “the men sent by Cornelius appeared” (Acts 10:17). Although we
as readers have a better sense of the overall picture, since we are privy to
Cornelius’s experiences, Peter remains confused. He does not gain immediate
clarity about what he has seen.
Cornelius’s men were “asking for Simon’s house and were standing by the
gate” (Acts 10:17); supposedly they are asking for Simon the tanner’s house,
where Simon Peter is staying. They called out to see whether Simon Peter was
there and it is at this point “Peter was still thinking about the vision” (Acts
10:18-19). This is what Wall means by “coincidence,” but for Luke it is the
Spirit that directs even this minor action. Whether Simon Peter heard them or
not, “the Spirit said to him, ‘Look, three men are searching for you. Now get
up, go down, and go with them without hesitation; for I have sent them’” (Acts
10:19-20).
It is not odd that the Spirit speaks to Peter directly, for all of this
information, of course, such as where to find Peter and sending men on to
locate him, has been passed on to Cornelius via a previous angelic visitation
(Acts 10:4-6). Joseph Fitzmyer says rightly that “heaven’s guidance moves the
story” (Fitzmyer, Acts, 456) and Pervo points to the “interchangeability”
of the Spirit and Jesus in Acts (Pervo, Acts, 272).
Still this literary alignment is significant for understanding how God
directs all of the players; we must remember Peter and Cornelius have never
met. As far as we know, Cornelius has never met a follower of Jesus before. But
even more directly, it is the Spirit who actually guides Peter, vetting Cornelius’s
men and supporting their bona fides as from God also. Peter is directed to accept
these men by God’s command in Acts 10:20. Indeed they have been “sent” (apostellô) by God, just as the apostles were (Pervo, Acts, 272). Peter is
basically told not to question the course of the events which will soon unfold
(Johnson, Acts, 185) for “the message these men bring him
accords with divine purpose” (Wall, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 164). He
was told, in fact, to go “without hesitation” (mēden diakrinomenos),
which “means to act without pausing to doubt its merit” (Wall, The New
Interpreter’s Bible, 164).
The “Commentary on Acts” in The Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford
Biblical Studies Online makes another important point about the phrase mēden
diakrinomenos, saying it is “an ambiguous verb whose double meaning is
important for the story's development (Johnson 1992: 185): it can simply mean
‘without hesitation’ (so NRSV), but also carries the sense ‘without making
distinctions’, ‘without discrimination’.” This sense is already implicit in
Peter's action in inviting his guests in and making them welcome” since we know
they are Gentiles, which Peter obviously does as well.
Wall suggests that “Peter’s question, ‘Why have you come?’ (Acts 10:21)
challenges the Spirit’s earlier instruction, “Go with them without hesitation’”
(Wall, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 164), but that need not be the case.
Peter did what the Spirit said; Peter is seeking meaning not rejecting his
call. Peter, recall, is still puzzling over the meaning of his vision, so it is
not odd to follow the Spirit’s urging but yet wonder and ask, “What is the
reason for your coming?” (Acts 10:21).
Peter identifies himself as the one they are seeking and then the men identify
Cornelius as the agent who has sent them, and describe who Cornelius is, but
also that an angel sent Cornelius to find Peter (Acts 10:21-22). The word
translated as “directed,”chrêmatizô, is a much stronger word than our directed, however, and “denotes a
revelatory word from God” (Wall, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 164; see
also Johnson, Acts, 185).
Cornelius is also described not as a “devout man,” as he was in Acts
10:2, but as a “righteous man,” usually used to describe someone who has
followed the Torah (Wall, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 164). Pervo sees
“righteous” as related to Cornelius’s charitable activity (Pervo, Acts,
272) on behalf of the Jewish people, but Fitzmyer (Acts, 457) sees it as
“observant,” a religious term, which I think could include Cornelius’s
charitable activity.
Peter trusts them and invites them in (Acts 10:23), specifically Wall
thinks because Peter accepts that Cornelius has received a word from God (Wall,
The New Interpreter’s Bible, 164; also Pervo, Acts, 272). Pervo makes
the point that Peter offers them hospitality in someone else’s home (Pervo, Acts,
272; see also Fitzmyer, Acts, 457), but that “hospitality implies the
acceptance of social bond” (see also Johnson, Acts, 185). Just as
important, I think, for the later development of the story is that though they
are Gentiles, Peter “has no hesitation in dining with such guests” (Fitzmyer, Acts,
457).
Wall believes that “the reader must presume that Peter now understands the
intent of his vision and has accepted the prospect of a Gentile mission as a
feature of God’s plan of salvation” (Wall, The New Interpreter’s Bible,
164), but that seems a little strong! Peter has been puzzling over his own
vision, and he has asked why they are there and trusts they are from God, but
they have not yet answered what their purpose is in seeking Peter. It is certain
that they do not yet know their broader purpose in getting Peter, since Peter
and Cornelius do not know themselves yet.
What Peter is willing to do, however, is follow the Spirit’s commands and
travel with them accompanied by some fellow believers from Joppa to Caesarea (Acts
10:23). The day after “they came to Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and
had called together his relatives and close friends” (Acts 10:24). Cornelius
has a crowd waiting and as Wall says importantly, “his relatives and close
friends” comprise his extended household and oikos (“household”) is
a prime location of God’s saving actions in Acts for Luke (Wall, The New
Interpreter’s Bible, 164, n.415). Indeed, the focus on the extended “household”
in Acts is something to pay close attention to in the Gentile environment.
When Peter arrived, “Cornelius met him, and falling at his feet,
worshiped him” (Acts 10:25). Cornelius’s mistake, trying to “worship” Peter, will
appear again in Gentile contexts in Acts. Pervo sees this as connected to the eastern
Roman practice of ruler cult activity and not necessarily to indicate that
Peter is a god (Pervo, Acts, 273). The verb is proskynein, which was
often used to describe obeisance made especially to an eastern ruler (Fitzmyer,
Acts, 461). Wall says that “for all his religious devotion Cornelius is
not yet a believer and still makes theological mistakes” (Wall, The New
Interpreter’s Bible, 164), but I think the point here might be broader.
Jesus was already being worshipped and on the surface, he seems just a human. This
is not just about Gentile worshippers, however, but also about the Jewish
believers’ worship of Jesus. This scene contains an implicit claim about the
nature of Jesus: if he is worshipped, it is because he is not just a human
being.
Peter rejects the worship of Cornelius, saying “Stand up; I am only a
mortal” (Acts 10:26). Peter rejects worship just as Moses, according to Philo
of Alexandria, also spurned deification (Pervo, Acts, 274). Peter then
finds out that “many had assembled” and then tells them that “You yourselves know
that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God
has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean. So when I was
sent for, I came without objection. Now may I ask why you sent for me?” (Acts
10:27-29).
Peter says it is not lawful “for a Jew to associate with or to visit a
Gentile,” but is that actually true? Given that Peter has just travelled a day
with the representatives of Cornelius and supposedly eaten with them, what are
we to make of this blanket statement? Whether Gentiles are inherently ritually
unclean is a disputed question. Many scholars say no and Fitzmyer sees the
claim as problematic (Fitzmyer, Acts, 461; see also Wall, The New
Interpreter’s Bible, 165, n.418). But Wall says that if we are speaking in a
cultic context it could be true (Wall, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 165).
Pervo states, rightly, that “there was no specific commandment against
intercourse with Gentiles. Observance of purity codes prevented the strictly
observant from such activities as eating in gentile homes” (Pervo, Acts, 274). Johnson agrees, saying it depended on the Jewish group (Johnson,
Acts, 190).
Gilbert, however, in Acts, JANT, 219, offers the best summary statement,
accounting for all of these aspects of thought: “fear of committing idolatry
and desire to avoid prohibited foods required care in how Jews associated with
Gentiles. Peter’s statement, however, is rarely reflected in Jewish writings
(cf. Jub 22:16), but represents a common perspective among Gentiles (e.g.,
Philo, Spec. Law. 2.167; Tacitus, Hist. 5.1-13). Actual
practice among Jews would not have supported this view, as for instance the existence
of a “Court of the Gentiles” at the Temple would indicate.” It seems as if Peter
is saying that he no longer needs to take care in associating with Gentiles,
but a new stage in relationship between Jews and Gentiles has been achieved
somehow.
For Peter then connects his vision of unclean animals to Gentiles and
that he should not call “anyone” profane or unclean (Fitzmyer, Acts,
461). Wall says that Peter recognizes the “subtext” of what God has shown him by
declaring all animals “clean” (Wall, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 165; Johnson,
Acts, 190), but I think it is a more interesting step by Peter. As Pervo
says, Peter is not a puppet here “despite all the apparatus of divine control”
and “Acts sets forth the understanding that the impetus for the gentile mission
resulted from a decision that a revelation was to be interpreted in a symbolic
manner” (Pervo, Acts, 275; see also “Commentary on Acts” in The
Oxford Bible Commentary).
This is such an important point since the fact that foods are no longer
“unclean” does not necessarily move directly to the belief that Gentiles whatever
they eat or however they worship are in a state of purity; it is an
interpretive step. And even having made that interpretive step, Peter is still
not sure what the import of it is, as he still asks, “Now may I ask why you
sent for me?” (Acts 10:29). We might think it is obvious, but I believe Luke
has properly set up the early Christian dilemma: how can Gentiles be invited
into the community of believers as Gentiles? Peter’s question, basically, “so
what do you want?,” does not have an easy or obvious answer for him.
Next entry, Cornelius
explains himself and Peter shares the Gospel.
John W. Martens
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies
I encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.
This entry is cross-posted at America Magazine - The Good Word
0 comments:
Post a Comment