Acts 9:32–11:30

1. I.F. The Gospel Goes North (9:32–11:30)
   1. 1. Aeneas and Dorcas (9:32–43)
   2. 2. Cornelius the God-Fearer (10:1–11:18)
      1. a. Cornelius’s Vision (10:1–8)
      2. b. Peter’s Vision (10:9–16)
      3. c. Peter Travels to Cornelius (10:17–33)
      4. d. Peter Preaches the Gospel (10:34–43)
      5. e. The Gentiles Receive the Holy Spirit (10:44–48)
      6. f. Peter’s Report (11:1–18)
   3. 3. The Gentile Church in Antioch (11:19–30)

Often in our desire and quest for spiritual gifts we focus on ourselves—not unlike the way in which Simon Magus sought power for himself (8:19). But we must ask ourselves, “Why do I want these gifts?” Desiring such gifts is not wrong, but our motive must be love and service to others, not personal gain or recognition. Without love, the exercise of such gifts is nothing but noise (cf. 1 Corinthians 13). Our gifts are not properly “ours.” They do not begin and end with us but are in a sense on loan. We are stewards of the gifts God gives us, but the gifts are his and his alone. He gives and can take away. This is true in regard to “spiritual” gifts and also to the various gifts God gives us to pursue our callings, such as preaching, teaching, parenting, working with numbers or machinery, making music, or whatever else. The gifts are for service and witness, always. Even the healing of Aeneas by the apostle Peter is not merely an exercise in showing the Spirit’s power but, like so many instances in Acts, leads to conversions. People see and hear what has happened to Aeneas and as a result come to faith in Jesus (Acts 9:35).

It is easy to overlook most people at work or at church or at school. It is also easy to rate the significance of others in terms of who is most likely to be the subject of a biography or who has the most potential to contribute to our lives in some way. In the kingdom, however, Tabitha means as much to the King as does Paul or Peter. Faithful Christians, working to make ends meet, maintaining hope amid the grind of daily life, witnessing to the power of Jesus in their works and words, are every bit as important to God as the best-known preacher on earth. Most of God’s people are simply believers dealing with all sorts of hidden and unhidden illnesses, temptations, and personal struggles, and to many their faith seems imperceptible at times—even to themselves. Yet God knows them as well as he knows anyone else, without distinction or partiality. One of Luke’s themes that stretches from his Gospel through Acts is God’s care and concern for society’s outsiders. Whether in regard to a young mother and her family, women in general, shepherds, Jews living outside the Mosaic covenant, tax collectors, lepers, or Samaritans, Luke shows clearly that Jesus did not come to spend time with the most important people in society, the people who had the most to offer, or those who were most like him. Yes, Luke writes about miraculous works done through the Spirit, but these are works done to (and through) everyday people. Peter is not on a big stage, standing near the temple, or walking the streets of Jerusalem; he makes the trip to look after a believer in relative obscurity and certainly out of the limelight. We can learn from both Tabitha and Peter.

In God’s providence, this one woman, known to her friends for her love and kindness, becomes the means through which people believe in Jesus. Her passive witness, as the object of the Spirit’s unlimited power, is really no different than our own witnessing. She was dead and raised, and her story became a means of faith for others. We were dead in our trespasses and sin but raised to life in Jesus (Eph. 2:1–10), and our witness points to his work in our own lives. Our stories are probably not as dramatic as hers, but they are no less about the gracious work of God in bringing people to faith in Jesus.

10:1–8 Cornelius the God-Fearer: Cornelius’s Vision. As a centurion, Cornelius commands one hundred men of the Italian Cohort, a unit of six hundred men—or more, in some cases. Luke describes him as one who “feared God” (v. 2). The men he sends to Peter describe him as “an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation” (v. 22). A “God-fearer” was a Gentile who followed the Jewish religion but was not a proselyte or convert. He prayed and gave alms according to Jewish custom but was not circumcised. God-fearer is a descriptive rather than technical term; God-fearers did not constitute a specified social group, as did the Pharisees or Sadducees. Although Cornelius is close to Judaism, he is not a Jew. He likely attends a synagogue, but if he went to Jerusalem he would not be allowed to enter past the court of Gentiles—the outer area where Jesus drove out the money-changers. Luke notes that Cornelius’s whole household shares his piety. Typically, “household” refers not only to immediate family but also to whatever extended family might live in the house, and to servants as well.

The “ninth hour” is approximately 3:00 p.m., a time designated in Jewish tradition as one of prescribed prayer. This occasion for prayer turns out to be something quite different. When the angel appears to him in a vision, Cornelius is, understandably, terrified. Angels are awe-inspiring heavenly beings who speak for God. When people see them, the usual reaction is fear and, often, falling to the ground (see, e.g., Isa. 6:1–7; Ezek. 1:4–28; Dan. 8:17–18; 10:9–15).

The angel tells Cornelius that his prayers and almsgiving “have ascended as a memorial before God” (Acts 10:4). This is not an example of God helping those who help themselves, meeting someone halfway, or acting because he recognizes good works and identifies Cornelius as a good candidate for the kingdom. The term “memorial” is connected to sacrifices in the OT: the priests would burn a part of the grain offering “as its memorial portion on the altar, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Lev. 2:2). “Pleasing aroma” is repeated numerous times in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers¹ to signify when the Lord recognizes and accepts a sacrifice. That Cornelius’s prayers and alms are a “memorial” points to the reality that God is interested not primarily in grain—or sheep and cattle for that matter—but in the heart of the one who brings the sacrifice. An Israelite could bring sacrifices all day long, but if the worshiper was not faithful to the Lord, then his sacrifices would mean nothing (Jer. 6:20). True sacrifice is “a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17). This Gentile soldier is closer to God than were all of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem who offered sacrifices, kept traditions, and killed the Messiah. It is fitting that the true nature of acceptable sacrifice to God is tied to the end of the Mosaic food laws and to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God. Cornelius’s prayers and alms, however, do not save him. God directs him to Peter for that.

10:9–16 Cornelius the God-Fearer: Peter’s Vision. The scene shifts to Peter, who is staying at the house of Simon the tanner (9:43). This in itself is worth noticing because Simon is a Jew, but as a tanner (one who prepares animal hides for use) he would frequently be in a state of uncleanness under the law due to his contact with dead animals. Again Luke highlights prayer, noting how Peter goes up to the roof at midday (the sixth hour) to pray. Whatever we make of dreams and visions from God, we should note that both visions in this chapter occur when people are already praying.

It is around lunchtime, and Peter becomes hungry. What happens next turns the tide in the coming of the kingdom. Luke describes how Peter falls “into a trance” and “something like” a sheet appears from heaven and comes down to earth (10:10–11). In the sheet are animals of all sorts, including reptiles and birds. Next, Peter hears a command: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat” (v. 13). Peter refuses, explaining that in his life he has never eaten anything forbidden by the Mosaic law—centuries of understanding of what it means to be faithful to God and his covenant are on the line. The vision is repeated two more times.

Even though Peter has been taught personally by Jesus, has received the Spirit, has powerfully preached the gospel, and has performed miraculous signs in the name of Jesus, taking this next step in the kingdom challenges him to the core of his being. To be Jewish meant to follow strictly the code of what to eat and what to avoid. An entire chapter of Leviticus spells these things out in detail (Leviticus 11). It has not occurred to Peter that following Jesus would mean a new way of looking at virtually everything he holds dear. As a boy, Peter would have heard the OT story of the exodus, sung the Psalms, and attended synagogue constantly. Only food authorized by the law has ever touched his lips. Now the same God who set those rules tells him to eat everything.

The reason for the reversal amounts to a radical change in the way God relates to his people. The old ways served their purpose, but everything they pointed to has been fulfilled. It is not as though God is speaking out of both sides of his mouth when he tells Peter, a Jew, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (Acts 10:15). God has not changed his mind, nor has he come up with a plan B. His unified plan included a time when God’s people would eat only certain foods, offer sacrifices, and be exclusively marked by circumcision, but that part of the plan has come to an end. Some things have to be cleared out of the way so that the one people of God, unified by faith in Jesus, can fellowship together. This new reality is difficult for Peter and will prove to be a major sticking point in much of the rest of Acts and in many of the NT Epistles. There will be recriminations, long speeches, pleas, a major council, riots, false accusations, and general confusion over what is revealed in Acts 10.

10:17–33 Cornelius the God-Fearer: Peter Travels to Cornelius. After the vision, Peter does not know exactly what he has seen or what it means, but he will soon discover that God is not really concerned with food, which is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg. The timing of the vision matches the arrival of the men sent by Cornelius (v. 17). Peter is still on the roof, attempting to ascertain what has just happened, when the Spirit himself tells him that three men are looking for him and that he is to leave the roof and depart with them as soon as possible. For the second time in the chapter, Luke relates Cornelius’s vision as the men describe it to Peter.

When they leave the next day for the 30-mile (48-km) trip to Caesarea, some of the Jewish believers from Joppa go with them—which will prove to be important for the sake of having witnesses to what is about to happen. Cornelius’s response when he sees Peter is evidence of the respect and high regard afforded the apostles. But, as respected as they are, the apostles are not objects of worship. Peter tells Cornelius to get up because he is a man, just like Cornelius (v. 26). To be clear, Cornelius does not worship Peter as though he mistakes him for God; the act is a sign of reverence. There is always, however, a thin line between reverence and idolatry. Respect and appreciation for well-known leaders is entirely appropriate; googly-eyed fawning is something else altogether. Peter lifts Cornelius up and speaks to him face to face, man to man. There is no place for inaccessible, aloof leaders among Christians; it violates completely the teaching of Jesus that servants are the greatest in the kingdom—a message directed to the disciples, with Jesus himself as the prime example (Luke 22:25–27; cf. Matt. 20:25–28; Mark 10:42–45).

In speaking to Cornelius, it does not take long for Peter to understand his vision. It is important to grasp the weight of what happens in this text; nothing will ever be the same after this point. Boundaries and walls are torn down, enemies reconciled, and the way to God opened as the ancient promise to Abraham reaches the nations for the first time at this moment in Caesarea. There will be fits and starts and serious obstacles, but there is never any doubt in Acts or the rest of the NT about what must follow this event.

Peter tells them what they already know: he is breaking the law, or at least contemporary interpretations of it, by entering the house. Whether “unlawful” (Acts 10:28) refers to the law itself or to tradition is beside the point. God has just showed him that the ceremonial law is no longer functioning now that the kingdom of Jesus is here. What matters is the conjunction “but” (v. 28). “Yes,” Peter says in effect, “you know what it means for me to be here in regard to Jewish purity, but God has declared all of that obsolete, a thing of the past. Its time has come to an end.” The food issue is secondary; the primary issue is people. In the vision, Peter heard, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (v. 15), and he interprets what that means: “God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean” (v. 28). God and people are the subjects here, not food. The food laws were never ultimately about food itself but about faithfulness to God. They were a covenant expression of holiness, living a life wholly devoted to God at every level, including diet. The eclipse of these laws is the end of a certain expression of devotion and faithfulness. Of course, the food laws were always meant to be about God and neighbor, but that idea was generally lost from the golden calf incident onward.

Luke includes Cornelius’s vision for the third time in verses 30–33, this time as Cornelius relates it to his Jewish guests.² Perhaps this serves as a kind of Christian apology for the apostolic view of the Mosaic law and the inclusion of the Gentiles. But whether or not it is intended as an apology, the repetition makes at least two things clear. First, by now it is unmistakable that all of this has taken place through the providence and plan of God. It is God himself who has directed Cornelius to Peter. Even the short version told to the men who come for Peter makes mention of the angelic source of the vision. Second, the other element mentioned all three times is Cornelius’s piety. This does not underscore Cornelius’s good works but rather highlights God’s acceptance of a Gentile. His alms and prayers matter to God even though he is clearly outside the Mosaic covenant. The Gentile Cornelius demonstrates what kind of memorial God desires and accepts.

If one begins with the point that God accepts Gentiles, it should be crystal clear that their acceptance in the church is beyond doubt. If God calls them clean, they are clean. As Peter says later, “Who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (11:17). The next section supports this understanding, and how far God’s acceptance of the Gentiles goes will be revealed in a few verses. The last thing we hear from Cornelius is a statement of confidence and trust. He and those with him recognize that God is present with Peter and that he is there to bring them God’s word—“all that you have been commanded by the Lord” (10:33). God has prepared them for hearing the gospel.

10:34–43 Cornelius the God-Fearer: Peter Preaches the Gospel. Peter expands his interpretation of the vision, saying that he understands now “that God shows no partiality” to anyone, regardless of ethnic or cultural background (v. 34); “nation” refers primarily not to lines on a modern map but to sociolinguistic groups (v. 35). Thus “every nation” refers to every group of people on earth. Their racial pedigree does not matter; what counts is living in fear of God and doing what pleases him. These are what mark the people whom God accepts, not food or ethnicity. Verse 35 strikes the same note as the testimony about Cornelius: God accepts everyone who “fears him and does what is right” (cf. vv. 2, 4, 22, 31). As before, this does not introduce the idea of salvation by works or some sort of mix of works and grace but rather highlights the fact that God welcomes all people in the gospel. This is not a systematic comment about the basis of salvation at large, and the word “accept” should not be pressed to mean more than it does in this particular context. Cornelius was not saved before Peter arrived (11:14). The idea is simply that God welcomes all people “on the same basis as the Jews.”³ Neither is there a hint of pluralism, as though Peter implies that even apart from Christ God accepts anyone who “does what is right.” After all, Peter will end the sermon by declaring that forgiveness of sins comes through faith in Jesus (10:43).

Peter begins to preach the gospel, and he includes all the major components of early Christian proclamation. Right from the beginning, however, Luke includes an aside in Peter’s sermon, “he is Lord of all” (v. 36), which comes on the heels of the introduction of the gospel as “the word that [God] sent to Israel.” This is subtle, but we should note a healthy bit of contextualization of the message. Nothing is changed or compromised, but for this presentation of the gospel to the Gentiles, Jesus’ universal lordship gains special notice. Although the idea is present in the earlier sermons, here for the Gentiles it is explicit.

Peter’s sermon is a summary of the life and ministry of Jesus. The audience is already familiar with what happened not long before, as the news about Jesus has already traveled everywhere in Judea and beyond. Did Peter say more than this? It is possible, but as in the earlier sermons, whatever else may have been said is beside the point for Luke’s readers. Peter’s recounting of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection is bracketed by the apostolic ministry of the gospel (vv. 36, 43), with a familiar emphasis on the eyewitness testimony of the apostles and their commission to preach.

Luke includes a brilliantly compressed account of Jesus’ life constructed around key points: Jesus’ baptism and anointing, his ministry witnessed by the disciples, his crucifixion, and his resurrection, which was also witnessed by the disciples. The climax of the sermon is a note of judgment: Jesus commanded the apostles “to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge” (v. 42). This command is not part of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20), nor is it mentioned before this point in Acts. It is possible that Jesus issued this command during his forty days with the disciples before the ascension, but the exact timing of the original command is not the issue. The more important issue concerns the reason Peter mentions it here. The Gentile context is key.

Peter has just finished recounting how those in Jerusalem “put [Christ] to death by hanging him on a tree” (Acts 10:39). Peter and Stephen have previously laid this at the feet of their Jerusalem audiences, condemning them for the death of Jesus. At Pentecost and later, outside the temple, this note of judgment led to repentance for those who believed by driving them to the gospel. At Cornelius’s house, Peter cannot make the same direct, personal application of guilt in connection to the crucifixion, so the message of judgment is expanded to proclaim Jesus as the appointed “judge of the living and the dead” (v. 42), not merely of those who crucified him. The next verse holds out the prophetic hope “that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (v. 43). Verse 42 provides judgment, while verse 43 provides the good news. There is also an implication of guilt in the offer of forgiveness: why offer forgiveness if there is no guilt?

Support for this interpretation comes from Paul’s sermon at the Areopagus in chapter 17. Paul tells his philosopher audience that God will no longer overlook their ignorance but now “commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (17:30–31). Although neither audience (in chs. 10 and 17) is personally guilty of the crucifixion in the sense of being present at the time, these Gentiles are nevertheless guilty before God and in need of repentance. The principle of Romans 3:19–20 is at work again: whatever guilt the Jews have incurred before God exposes the guilt of the world. The world is under God’s condemnation, and Jesus is the way of repentance and forgiveness to all, first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. The apostolic proclamation announces judgment, but, like all preaching, it cannot describe the entire biblical picture in detail. The larger biblical worldview, however, undergirds and provides for the proclamation.

10:44–48 Cornelius the God-Fearer: The Gentiles Receive the Holy Spirit. Now comes the turning point. These verses constitute a sort of Pentecost for the Gentiles. While Peter preaches, the Holy Spirit “[falls] on all who heard the word” (v. 44). The Greek word for “fall on,” epipiptō, is different than that used in 2:4 (pimplēmi, “fill”) but amounts to the same thing. The difference certainly does not imply that the Gentiles receive the Spirit in some sort of different or lesser way; in both instances the reception of the Spirit is confirmed by the speaking of tongues (10:46; cf. 2:4). The Jewish believers with Peter are “amazed” when they see the Gentiles receiving the Spirit. It is hard to imagine the shock they must feel. The Holy Spirit enters in dramatic fashion—and upon uncircumcised Gentiles, no less. Peter’s previous remark, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality” (10:34), has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt. There is no denying it, for the Gentiles begin to speak in tongues, just as the believers did at Pentecost.

This is not necessarily only the speaking in other languages. Unlike at Pentecost, the place is seemingly not filled with people who speak other languages and dialects (cf. 19:6). Some interpreters believe that “tongues” always refers to human languages, although that cannot be proven by this particular text; instead it must be inferred by the parallel to Acts 2. The hermeneutical principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture, of clear texts interpreting difficult texts, is a sound method of interpretation. Applied here it also follows the “hermeneutical circle” of moving outward in Scripture in an ever-increasing circle (some prefer “spiral”) of context. The “circle,” however, turns in both directions. Some interpret Paul’s reference in 1 Corinthians 13:1 to “the tongues of men and of angels” (cf. 1 Cor. 14:5, 13) as a reference to heavenly, spiritual language, while others understand him to be speaking hyperbolically in verses 1–3.

There is a great deal of disagreement among Bible-believing Christians on this issue, so a dose of humility is in order when making a case. It is difficult to see the significance of Cornelius and the others bursting out in Hebrew, Latin, Syriac, or whatever other language, although it could be a sign of the gospel’s going to the whole world. Some kind of spiritual, heavenly utterance may be hard to accept, but our experience cannot be the final guide. The best way to read “tongues” here alongside the faith of the Gentiles is as including ecstatic, Spirit-given speech that comes upon these believers as undeniable evidence that the Gentiles have indeed received the Spirit just as Jewish believers have.

The issue of tongues can cause us to miss that the Gentiles are “extolling God” (Acts 10:46). In fulfillment of the prophets, Gentiles are worshiping and praising the one true God. One of the key eschatological signs of the day of the Lord is fulfilled in Cornelius’s house this day. The ingathering of a faithful remnant of Jews is foretold alongside the inclusion of the nations, and the fulfillment of that promise begins to unfold in this text.

Peter understands what the next step must be: the Gentiles must be baptized. The early church did not separate believing and being baptized. The decision to baptize is clearly because the people have received the Holy Spirit, just as the Jewish believers had (v. 47). The command to baptize “in the name of Jesus” (v. 48) is not at odds with the command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). In baptism, Cornelius identifies specifically with Jesus. The “name of Jesus” does not exclude the Father or the Spirit, for the shared triune nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit falls under the single “name” of Jesus, since his nature and name cannot be separated. In addition, “name of Jesus” is a favorite of Luke’s, appearing eighteen times in Acts. Jesus is the source of healing, power over evil spirits, and forgiveness, all of which take place in his name. Jesus is the Messiah, and the true people of God, whether Jew or Gentile, are saved and united only through him.

As for who is baptized, Luke notes that the Spirit “fell on all who heard the word” (Acts 10:44); he has already mentioned how “many persons gathered” when Peter went into the house (v. 27) and how Cornelius and all his household (family and servants) “feared God” (v. 2). The household, those gathered when Peter came in, may have included children when the Spirit fell on all in the room. The reception of the Spirit is clearly linked to believing in Jesus—that being the last thing recorded before the Spirit falls on the hearers. Whatever the ages of those baptized, they are the ones who have believed and received the Spirit, which are the two clear prerequisites for baptism here. There is no conclusive evidence that this baptism includes infants; Luke does not say one way or another.

Cornelius’s encounter with the angel of the Lord is not the typical way God chooses to communicate with mankind. This is a unique situation, a turning point in salvation history. However, observations about this encounter can be applied today. Cornelius receives what can legitimately be called “special revelation,” but this revelation is not for salvation itself but points Cornelius to the person who can show him the way. In our day, stories abound of people receiving dreams or visions from God, particularly in areas lacking Christian witness. From a distance it is difficult to sort out legitimate from counterfeit stories, but that such events occur is well documented.⁴ Some Christians dismiss such stories out of hand because they represent extrabiblical revelation. But such stories are similar to Cornelius’s experience and are in that sense quite biblical. It is better to say that personal visions and dreams are not typical—nor are they typical in the biblical narrative, for that matter. Instances of the Lord or an angel of the Lord meeting and speaking with people typically involve the main character of a narrative (e.g., Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, the OT prophets, Joseph, Mary, Peter, Paul). Most believers mentioned in the Bible do not receive special revelation but relate to God only by faith.

In this respect, things have not changed from the very beginning until now. One of the hallmarks of legitimate dreams and visions today is that they direct the recipient to go somewhere and find a certain person or to receive a man or woman coming to their village or region. The majority of accounts deemed legitimate are not about people coming to faith in Jesus through a dream but about people being directed to someone who tells them about Jesus, just as in Cornelius’s vision (cf. 11:14). Thus these experiences do not constitute special revelation. Generally speaking, Cornelius’s experience is unusual both in the Bible and anytime since.

What is required for baptism? In many churches, this question is considered alongside church membership. The answer includes belief that Jesus is Lord and that in him the repentant can find forgiveness of sins—in other words, belief in the gospel. At Cornelius’s house, Peter witnessed visible evidence, a clear manifestation of the Spirit’s presence, that led the apostle to conclude that these Gentiles should be baptized, just like believing Jews. But there is little evidence in church history that what happened at Pentecost, in Samaria, and at Cornelius’s home is what typically occurs when people believe. Public profession of Jesus, along with a personal interview confirming said profession, should be interpreted as repentance and a true work of the Spirit. If someone can credibly confess that he knows his sin and guilt before God, has repented for forgiveness of sin through the death of Jesus, and submits to him as Lord, then he should be baptized.

Local churches must decide how to handle confessions of faith of children and in special cases, but we must be extremely careful not to withhold baptism based on anything unrelated to faith in Jesus. Regardless of a person’s background, former actions, behavior, or lifestyle, if he confesses Christ he should be baptized. We must guard against external matters, or issues of personal and cultural discomfort, becoming barriers for recognizing the work of the Spirit. And, regardless of false conversions—and, sadly, we all know of too many—we must not allow our (sometimes) well-placed concerns designed to protect the church to become harmful barriers by which we justify the rejection of sincere new believers in Jesus. If there is no reason to doubt a person’s sincerity, yet based on “wisdom” and experience we set arbitrary walls, we are like the circumcision party, which made unrealistic and sinful demands of the Gentiles. Our responsibility for the one confessing Christ is greater than our responsibility to any tradition.

For preachers, teachers, and evangelists, the gospel presentation in Peter’s sermon at Cornelius’s house provides a framework for teaching the Bible and theology and sharing the gospel. First, John the Baptist serves as a gateway to the ancient story, leading to the incarnation of Christ. As John is the last of the messianic prophets, we can begin with him and work our way back to the OT prophets, to Moses, and to the law these prophets taught and applied. This places us in the trajectory of promise and fulfillment—in which John firmly stands. Second, Jesus’ anointing by the Spirit can lead to a discussion of Jesus as the fulfillment of the promise and how through Christ’s death and resurrection the Spirit is now at work in believers, or more generally to theological discussion concerning the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit. Moreover, Peter’s mention of anointing, right on the heels of speaking of John the Baptist, connects to Jesus’ own baptism, which opens the door to discussing the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. Third, a presentation of the story in the Gospels can be built on the summary statement of Jesus’ life and ministry: “He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil” (10:38).

11:1–18 Cornelius the God-Fearer: Peter’s Report. It should come as no surprise that many Jews do not take easily to the radical change that, almost overnight, turns centuries of tradition on its head. In rather sudden fashion Gentiles believe in Jesus, receive the Spirit, and undergo baptism. This would be hard enough to process, but it immediately goes a step further: the early Christian leaders, Jews one and all, enter Gentile houses and eat meals with them. Some, like Peter, see (though it takes a thrice-repeated vision) that if Gentiles have the Spirit, then God accepts them fully, so to resist the Gentiles is to resist God. Peter himself will have his own moment of struggle over this, at least until Paul sets him straight (see Galatians 2).⁵ If the early Christians refuse the Gentile believers, they will be no different than the Jewish leaders who rejected Jesus. Their rejection of Jesus was a rejection of God, just like their fathers’ rejection of the prophets. This fact never changes: one cannot be faithful to God and simultaneously refuse to accept what he is doing in the world.

“Brothers” in verse 1 certainly includes women as well (cf. ESV mg.). The news spreads, Luke notes, “throughout Judea”; together with “the apostles and the brothers,” this is a way of stating that everyone hears of the inclusion of the Gentiles. Verse 2 introduces a group, the “circumcision party,” that will play a large, and often infamous, role in the NT. These are Jewish believers who have issues with the Gentile believers. They are Jews with a high regard for the ongoing place of the ceremonial law, including the laws regarding food and circumcision. They are willing to welcome the Gentiles only if these new believers undergo circumcision. Until then they are critical of Peter not only for going to the Gentiles (“uncircumcised men”) but also for eating with them (v. 3). From their viewpoint, to eat with someone, to share table fellowship, is to accept and identify with them, not to mention to come into contact with unclean things and people restricted by the Mosaic law. These Gentiles were born unclean and remain so. Their food is unclean, as are their houses and basically everything about them.

We cannot be sure how many of the “circumcision party” ever came around to a full understanding of the reality of the new covenant. In this text Peter does convince his audience. Later, at the Jerusalem council, those with objections and reservations will also gladly accept the decision addressing how to handle Gentile believers. That this is an ongoing issue in the NT, seen in Galatians and Philippians, for instance, indicates that some never warm to the idea. There is no way to tell whether any of the Judaizers who trouble Paul and his churches are among those who hear Peter’s report or attend the Jerusalem council in chapter 15. The Judaizing ethos does, however, clearly leave something of a legacy. Early church history includes Jewish groups that identify with James, reject Paul, and form their own sort of Christianity. The heretical Ebionites are a later example of such a sect. It seems likely they are an offshoot of the circumcision party, or at least share a similar ethos, but we cannot connect all the dots. Later trajectories of trends seen in the NT are not an indication of the exact beliefs of those in the NT era, even when some clear connections are evident. The fact of the matter is that all heresy begins in orthodoxy. Every falsehood is rooted in some truth—otherwise no one would believe it.

Verses 5–15 include the second narrating of Peter’s rooftop vision and its interpretation. Like the repetition of Cornelius’s story, this second mention emphasizes the importance of the event. This version is combined with Peter’s recounting of the delegation’s coming from Cornelius and a short, direct summary of the coming of the Spirit on the Gentiles. Then Peter’s reflection and interpretation follow in verses 16–17. Besides reinforcing the importance of the event in the biblical history of salvation, as well as serving to record accurately what actually happened, this repetition also lets readers in on a private meeting between Peter and the circumcision party, whose objections are made clear. The basics of their view will prove to be important information for understanding later events in Acts and the rest of the NT—later objections and hesitancies will be read against the background of this encounter.

The events at Cornelius’s house are now public knowledge, and there are witnesses to testify to it. It is easy to miss that right in the middle of the retelling we learn that “some of the brothers from Joppa” (10:23) means precisely “six brothers” (11:12): there are abundant witnesses to support Peter’s story. This fits with the importance of the eyewitness theme in Acts.

Peter adds, without qualification, that he went because the Spirit told him to do so (v. 12). Coming from Peter, whose work and ministry is by now well-attested and witnessed, the claim that “the Spirit told me” carries a great deal of weight.

In addition to the explicit number of men who came from Joppa, another piece of the Cornelius story is not revealed until now. When the angel appeared to Cornelius, he told him to summon Peter from Joppa, but he also told Cornelius that Peter would “declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household” (v. 14). This locates the time of Cornelius’s salvation as the time at which Peter was preaching and the Spirit fell. Cornelius the God-fearer was saved when he believed in Jesus and received the Spirit. This means that his vision was preparatory, directing him to the fulfillment of what he looked for in Judaism. Some might take Cornelius as already believing before he met Peter, similar to how OT saints were saved by believing in God’s promises, fulfilled ultimately in Jesus. Cornelius, however, lived not in a time of looking forward but in a time after the fulfillment of the promise, or at least in a transitional time. Whatever we make of Cornelius’s status before Peter came to Caesarea, the phrase “by which you will be saved” is transparent enough. It is true that God appeared to Cornelius and had favor on him. But that does not have to—and does not—mean that he was already saved. The text does not refer to the means “by which you will be directed to take up the path of Jesus,” for instance. He was told how he would be saved. There is no reason to take this differently than what the Philippian jailer means when he asks Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” (16:30), or what Peter meant when he said, “There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (4:12).

Peter’s foundation for understanding what happened in Caesarea is his own experience, shared by the Jewish believers, of the Holy Spirit. When he reports that “the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” (11:15), he refers to something tangible, a manifestation confirming the presence of the Spirit. In this case, speaking in tongues is the most likely confirmation. Thus the outward sign acts as a sort of witness to the inner truth of receiving the Spirit. When people see the manifestations of the Spirit, they become witnesses to his presence in the lives of believers. This can apply to lesser, or at least more difficult to measure, signs of the Spirit. Of course, a large-scale spiritual gift such as speaking in tongues can be faked, but it does have the advantage of being rather immediate. Other evidences of the Spirit, such as changed lives, actions, desires, motivations, and the like, often take time to recognize and evaluate.

Peter’s interpretation reaches back to the Gospels, in which John the Baptist predicted this very thing. John baptized in water, but the baptism promised from Jesus was the Spirit (Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5), which is exactly what the Gentiles receive, just as the Jewish believers did when they “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:17). Peter’s conclusion is simple: If the Gentiles have the Spirit, just like the Jewish believers do, then it is case closed. Again, belief and reception of the Spirit are directly tied together. Even the apostles received the Spirit when they believed in Jesus.

Determining the occasion of that event in the life of the apostles is more difficult. It was not at Pentecost when they believed but evidently at some point after the resurrection. Textually, the best possibility is when Jesus breathes on them, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). The experience of the apostles and first disciples is different than that of the majority of people who believe later in Acts, including the Gentiles. Believing and receiving the Spirit are linked in Acts. The manifestations of the Spirit—e.g., tongues—are different in various contexts. For Peter and the disciples, that particular sign of the Spirit comes at a point after they believe and have the Spirit. For Cornelius and the other Gentiles in Caesarea, however, believing, receiving, and showing all take place at once. This makes sense of what Peter says in verse 16 alongside what he says in verse 17. Receiving and showing are inseparable but not identical.

Verse 17 refers to refusing or preventing (Gk. kōlysai, “stand in . . . way”) the baptism of the Gentiles. This is the same verb the Ethiopian eunuch uses in asking, “What prevents [kōlyei] me from being baptized?” (8:36), and that Peter uses when asking, “Can anyone withhold [kōlysai] water for baptizing these people?” after seeing the Spirit fall on the Gentiles at Cornelius’s house (10:47). Baptism is an outward sign of membership in the new covenant, the inward sign being the reception of the Spirit (Jeremiah 31; Ezekiel 36; John 3). Granting baptism to Cornelius and others means recognizing that they believe in Jesus and have received the Spirit. Anyone who receives the Spirit must be allowed to receive baptism.

Peter’s retelling hits home with his Jewish audience. They are speechless for some time before glorifying God (Acts 11:18), that is, acknowledging him to be right and speaking the truth about him, who he is, and what he does. These Jews are convinced. There is no reason to suppose these same people waffle later and change their position on the Gentiles—though some could (as Peter does later for a time in Antioch)—but this does help us understand that “circumcision party” does not refer to a carefully organized, delineated group but serves as a blanket term for Jewish believers who want Gentiles to accept Judaism alongside accepting Jesus. Peter’s hearers are not the entire “circumcision party” but are part of a larger, generalized group. When we come to the Jerusalem council in chapter 15, we will see other Jewish believers who hold similar views.

We must not miss the church’s early unity on this issue. At times, especially in modern scholarship, we allow the disunity experienced over the Jew–Gentile relationship in the new covenant to overshadow the harmony enjoyed by many in the early church, but that is not what the text of Scripture indicates. Without diminishing the importance and weight of the issue, we must not forget how Luke emphasizes, time and again, the unity of the church. These Jewish believers in Acts 11 rejoice over what has taken place. Those at the Jerusalem council (at least those we hear about) will rejoice at the decisions of that council (as will Gentile believers outside Judea).

The Jewish believers conclude that “God has granted repentance that leads to life” (v. 18). Given the immediate and larger context related to believing, baptism, and receiving and showing the Spirit, as well as the fact that repentance is used early in Acts in the context of salvation (see 2:38), all the evidence points to 10:44–45 as being a description of what we would call “being saved”—that is, the experience of salvation that occurs upon one’s faith in Jesus.

11:19–30 The Gentile Church in Antioch. In these verses Luke introduces his readers to the other center of early Christian activity. Luke does not follow a strict order of events but places these events immediately after the narrative of Cornelius. Antioch and Jerusalem are the geographical focal points for the spread of the kingdom throughout the world. The church at Antioch arises in direct connection to the persecution following Stephen’s death. The “men of Cyprus and Cyrene” (v. 20) are Jews living outside of Israel. They come and speak to the “Hellenists,” a flexible word that here refers to Gentiles. Luke used the term earlier to refer to Greek-speaking Jewish believers (6:1) and to unbelieving Greek-speaking Jews (9:29). The conclusion that these Hellenists in chapter 11 are Gentiles is based on the reaction of the Jerusalem church—why send Barnabas to check on the conversion of Greek-speaking Jews? Believers receive word in Jerusalem similar to the way they heard about the conversion of Cornelius (11:1). This situation is also similar to the conversion of the Samaritans—believers hear about it in Jerusalem, and Peter and John go to investigate (8:14). Now they hear of Gentile believers at Antioch, so they send Barnabas to check on things.

Once in Antioch, Barnabas without hesitation rejoices to see the grace of God at work. He sees what is happening and encourages these new believers to stay faithful. Once again, Barnabas’s character is explicitly described; he is “a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith” (11:24). The apostles called him Barnabas, “son of encouragement” (4:36; his name was Joseph), and it is clear that he has risen to prominence in leadership. His rise is related to his character and sets up the coming narrative of the first missionary journey taken by Barnabas and Paul.

Barnabas is well aware of Saul/Paul, who was last mentioned in Luke’s narrative at 9:30, and Barnabas knows where to find him. It was Barnabas who introduced Paul to the apostles and told them his story (9:27), and now he goes to the man he saw preach so boldly in Jerusalem and engage Jewish unbelievers—so much so that they wanted to kill him (9:28–29). A partnership that will last years begins here. Together they stay for one year, teaching in Antioch.

Whether “first called Christians” (11:26) refers to self-reference or to a label from others is disputed. The more likely conclusion is that the name is first given by others to distinguish the believers from competing groups.⁶ In Jewish settings these believers are considered a sect, a splinter Jewish group (24:5, 14; 28:22), and Gentiles probably view them in relation to Jews. In Antioch, however, Gentiles have joined these Jewish followers of Jesus of Nazareth. They are not Jews, though they socialize with them sometimes, and they have also changed and left their former lifestyles and practices. Such a group needs a new name. And the name sticks.

The chapter ends with a character who will appear again later, a prophet named Agabus (11:28; 21:10–14). Unlike the OT prophets, Agabus comes simply foretelling, by the Spirit, what is going to happen; he includes no call for repentance nor commands a particular behavior in response to his prophecy. He simply foretells a famine coming to Jerusalem. Both the Scriptures and extrabiblical historical accounts confirm that a famine occurred during the reign of Claudius in the mid-first century. The important point for Acts is that Christians in Antioch immediately elect to send help to the Christians in Judea, choosing Paul and Barnabas to deliver the gift. Collecting donations for Jerusalem frames Paul’s ministry. It begins here and will bring Paul back to Jerusalem later, when he will bring money collected from the churches planted among the Gentiles during his missionary journeys.

We should seek to understand the struggle the early Christians faced over the Gentile question. Some may say, “If these Jews understood the OT, the inclusion of the Gentiles would not have surprised them.” Jesus, after all, made similar observations about the Jews’ lack of understanding (e.g., Luke 16:31). But are we so enlightened, so advanced beyond personal and cultural prejudices, so unaffected by things such as traditions, habits, culture, or social pressures, that we never do things for which Jesus would reprimand us and ask in effect, “Don’t you know better than that?” What would early believers say about our ideas and behaviors that make no sense after two thousand years of church history? What about the OT saints, who died having only the promise of faith (Hebrews 11)? What would they think of us and our track record so many centuries after the fulfillment they longed for but died without receiving? Are we really all that different from the early Jewish believers who struggled to understand the epic events unfolding before them?

Regardless of how well we grasp things theologically, it is hard to recognize and shake off prejudices, dispositions, and habits. We never have the luxury of assuming we are past all error or misjudgment. Sin is ever present and will be until the Lord returns. We should, therefore, have some patience and understanding for those in error, especially if our aim is to win them over. The goal is not to replace arrogance or complacency with an easygoing acceptance of virtually any error based on a slipshod interpretation of “judge not, that you be not judged” (Matt. 7:1). Neither am I commending a lowest-common-denominator view of the faith. The goal is to go deeper into the story personally, to see ourselves in its various characters, both good and bad, and to allow the Spirit to take the text of the Bible and dig down to our core to open up and expose the dark corners and shadows that keep us from being transparent with ourselves and others. The power of story comes from taking in the story—all of it, not just the good parts—and taking part in it. This is how we learn the way in which narrative teaches and the way to read it and interpret it. The problem for some of the early believers was accepting the gospel alone, apart from their own prejudices, expectations, and beliefs. The gospel needs, and accepts, no additions or subtractions—holding to that truth proves to be just as difficult for us as it was for them.