Acts 10:34-48

Acts 10:34-48 is a significant passage for many reasons. Perhaps the most important aspect of this passage is the extension of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles who had previously been considered “unclean” (Acts 10:28). It isn’t so much that God considered them unclean, but they were clearly thought of as unclean in the Jewish understanding at the beginning of Acts. The preceding text throughout Acts ten is of the utmost importance in understanding why this passage is so significant. The main characters of this story are Cornelius, a Roman centurion, and the apostle Peter. Some other characters who appear are Cornelius’s servant, angels, and the Gentiles to whom Peter is speaking. An angel came to Cornelius with a message telling him to send for Peter. Cornelius sent his servants. Meanwhile, Peter was given a message from an angel preparing him to go to Cornelius in Caesarea. He is very reluctant to this idea saying, “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile.” Once Peter arrives in Caesarea, Cornelius tells him about his encounter with the angel and all the things that took place since then.

It is interesting to note the Holy Spirit’s involvement throughout the narrative that begins with setting up this divine appointment between Peter and Cornelius for the sake of bringing the good news to the Gentiles. The Holy Spirit is not at work for the first time by all means. But the Holy Spirit is preparing to arrive in a new way. It is also very interesting to observe the part of the conversation Peter had with the angel in 10:15 saying, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” This motif sets up the interaction between Peter and the gentiles in Caesarea that would take place in 10:34-48. Peter is obviously reluctant to the idea of taking part in anything profane. God had to speak to him three times before he accepted the reality of the way God’s kingdom was being made manifest.

There are many key words and motifs in this passage that carry over from the early portion of Acts 10. Two of the most crucial words in this context are “partiality” (10:34) and  “Holy Spirit.” The word, “partiality” is significant for many reasons. Peter begins his discourse to the gentiles by saying, “I truly understand that God show no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” The words “Holy Spirit” are also crucial because there is a focus on this part of the Trinity throughout this chapter. The Holy Spirit is spoken of as the one what “anointed Jesus of Nazareth” in 10:38 and interrupts Peter’s discourse in 10:44; “while Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word.”

In addition to significant motifs and words, there are also very significant phrases in terms of use in the Old Testament and previously in the New Testament. In 10:39 Peter says, “they put him to death by hanging him on a tree.” This is the second time in the book of Acts that Peter has alluded to Jesus being hung on a “tree.” He would allude to it again in his epistle as well (I Peter 2:24). This would have been especially important to the Jews as the law of Deuteronomy spoke of the one who hung on the tree being cursed. (Deuteronomy 21)

This text definitely exhibits internal structure in its form and development. Its literary form is mostly narrative but there is a lot of dialogue as well. Narrative and dialogue go back and forth throughout. The previous section in Acts 10 could also be categorized in relation to particular dialogues between God and humans by way of angels. The ending could be categorized with Pentecostal literature as the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles. The entire drama of the story has an upward effect rather than a climax that leads to a softer resolution. There is question as to whether Peter would go to the Gentiles and preach, he preaches, and then the most surprising element occurs when the Holy Spirit descends leaving a very triumphant climax at the end of the passage.

The only textual variant in this passage is the inclusion of the word “which” in 10:36; “You know the word which he sent to the sons.” Most translations include it. It seems as if it were a non-intentional inclusion or exclusion based on the way the Greek is written. It would be easy to miss. It doesn’t appear to be a significant enough variant to alter the meaning of the passage as a whole.

There are a few things about this text that speak to the socio-historical setting. This passage takes place in Caesarea, a city that is named after the “Caesar” denoting significant political currents that are present with regard to the Roman powers. It is significant that Peter is called to preach to Romans of all the gentile ethnicities the Holy Spirit could have chosen for this conversation. The other socio-historical notion is that of purity. The question of the profane and unclean is addressed head on. It seems as if Peter’s perspective in the previous passage is quite concrete with regard to impure things, Jewish partiality, food, or other things that could be considered impure by Jewish standards. By the time we reach 10:34 his understanding of these factors has changed significantly due to his encounter with the angel. Peter can’t help but include Jewish lingo throughout his short sermon to the gentiles speaking of thoroughly Jewish entities like Judea, Jerusalem, being hung on a tree, and prophets who testified about Jesus as the Christ.

Peter’s actual discourse is laden with Jewish themes. At one point he discusses the ones with whom God entrusted God’s message after the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost. In 10:37 he begins addressing God’s message as it had been “spread throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John announced.” He then continues by saying “we” are witnesses. One must attempt to identify the “we” of this statement. It seems as if he is referring to the Jews who were present there. He picks up the theme of Jewish priority again in 10:41 saying, “not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, and who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” Peter is trying to be inclusive as he speaks to the gentiles but it certainly doesn’t come across that way. 10:44-48 could be understood as a response to Peter’s disservice to the Gentiles who were present. It could be that since Peter claims the Holy Spirit came only to the Jews the first time, the Holy Spirit decides to come a second time to the Gentiles.

The whole of this text seems to be about extending the water of baptism to the entire world. This doesn’t necessarily mean there had not been any Gentile converts in the previous chapters of Acts or any other gospels. It is also about showing the way Peter progressed in his understanding of who was “in” and who was “out.” This is certainly a notion that is prevalent at all junctures of Christian history, especially in modern Christianity. We must be aware of who Peter is, how he has acted as a leader in the Church up to this point, and the fact that he would only appear in one more chapter before the focus was turned to Paul’s missionary journeys. On many occasions Peter is the one boldly standing up, calling out in the crowds, proclaiming God’s word, and battling with the Jewish authorities. By the time we reach this passage he has experienced years with Jesus, the crucifixion and resurrection, and countless supernatural instances since the day of Pentecost. This sermon is predicated on Peter’s understanding of God’s kingdom. There is another account of his resistance when the angel said, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” He replied, “by no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” It is painful and difficult for him to come to terms with such a powerful change, but his resistance is almost completely gone by 10:34 when he begins to speak to the gentiles. This passage is important for the contemporary Christian understanding of the nature of God. We see how God continued to interact with humans after Jesus had risen. The Spirit of God still on the move. There are rightfully concrete understandings of God’s view of outsiders that are being completely disrupted. In a few moments, Peter learns something about the nature of God that he didn’t gather from spending years with Jesus. It wasn’t just a nuance that needed to be reevaluated but an entire way of thinking. One introspectively determines if there is a certain group they are excluding based on their own, often rightfully concrete, understandings of the way God’s love is continually made manifest in our world.

Book Review - "Shadow of the Galilean"

“The Shadow of the Galilean” is a fictitious novel written by Gerd Theissen. It attempts to illustrate the story of Jesus from a historical perspective. The writer makes use of known historical facts paired with fictitious creativity to help the reader imagine what life would be like at the time of Jesus. By narrating the story it seems like Theissen hopes to develop the historical study of Jesus and the gospels in a reader-friendly way. The focus isn’t exactly on the story being told but the historical facts that are gathered through the main character’s interactions and experiences with people who actually existed and events that are recorded in the Gospels.

The main character is a fictitious man named Andreas who lived at the beginning of the first century in Palestine. He was a merchant who sold fruit and grain (4). Toward the beginning of the book Andreas gets caught up in a demonstration against the oppressive Roman government, which results in his imprisonment. The first scene describes a dialogue between himself and a Roman officer where he is blackmailed and given an ultimatum. He would either continue to be persecuted and imprisoned or he could act as a spy for the Romans, who desire information regarding Jewish factions who could threaten them. He grudgingly chooses to help them and is given his first task of investigating a surreptitious group of Jews who live near the Dead Sea called the “Essenes”.

Andreas and his two servants, Timon and Malcus, learn much through an encounter with a man named Baruch, who had once been a part of the Essene community. Andreas reports some of his findings to his Roman supervisor, Metilius saying they are religiously disciplined people, set apart from other Jews in the use of their own solar calendar, and a few other details. He purposefully leaves out the fact that the Essenes strongly dislike the Romans except to say they do not agree with Herod Antipas’ polygamous relationships (43).

John the Baptist is killed along with other suspected fanatics. Now that Andreas has successfully reported to the Romans regarding the Essenes he is given his second task of focusing on Jesus of Nazareth as another potential danger to the Roman regime. He starts by going straight to Nazareth where he meets a couple named Tholomaeus and Susanna whose son had left to follow Jesus. They give Andreas a distorted view of Jesus as one who tore apart their family and took their son away (65-71).

Zealots kidnap Andreas (and his slaves) allowing him to learn more about the Roman resistance communities. They then go to Capernaum where Andreas has a conversation with Matthias whose daughter was sick. This interaction reveals Jesus’ ability to heal and willingness to do it on the Sabbath. As he continues his journey Andreas finds out that Jesus is providing hope for many people in a conversation with the tax collector who replaced Matthew. Andreas continues to Tiberias where he converses with a Sadducee named Chuza and his wife Joanna, who was a follower of Jesus.

Andreas writes a statement to Metilius about all he has learned about Jesus. In his report he is careful not to depict Jesus in a negative way. Andreas is trying to keep the Romans from arresting Jesus, which is a foreshadowing of his latter devotion to Jesus. Andreas’ friend, Barabbus is captured so Andreas proposes a way that Barabbus might be set free. By doing this Jesus is unintentionally the one who is crucified instead of Barabbus. Once the crucifixion takes place Andreas discusses the events with Metilius and they both decide to follow Jesus.

The goal of this story is to help the reader picture the Gospel narrative through the lens of a character who lived at the time of Jesus, was in dialogue about him, and was shaped by hopes for a new life that were created by his own past. The historical setting is obviously in the forefront, which in many ways contributes to one’s reading of the Gospels. This type of narrative gives insight to various religious sects like the Esseenes and Saducees noting the nuances of their relationship with empirical Rome and key religious themes like Sabbath, conversion, and healing. This story also speaks to the way particular people-groups may have viewed Jesus. This is seen in the conversation with Levi’s parents and the dialogue with those who pose a threat to Rome. It can be difficult to place yourself in the historical frame of mind especially in trying to understand why the Jews and Romans would have allowed Jesus to be tortured to death. This study in the historical setting helps shape my reading of the gospel most in identifying with key characters that really existed.

While there are many noble aspirations within this novel there are many ways it can be critiqued. First, it must be said that as a Bible scholar it is easy to be overly critical of this type of writing. We aren’t used to it. If it isn’t read with the author’s intention one can tear it apart and completely miss its validity. Thus, I will attempt to discuss some of the disadvantageous notions.

The correspondence with Dr. Kratzinger was distracting to me for many reasons. Theissen is opening himself up to criticism by virtue of analyzing his own intentions. The letters are very one-sided painting Dr. Kratzinger in a negative light and discouraging an academic approach to the Gospel narrative in many ways. Theissen often replies noting a specific historical fact that in some way is to justify a fictitious dialogue. Another problem with this type of narrative historical study is the tendency to oversimplify very complex, historical questions and issues that have been constantly interrogated through the centuries. It is important to study the historical setting of scripture knowing that there comes a time when one cannot make completely accurate assertions. This is one reason why many parts of Theissen’s narrative could be heavily scrutinized. Context is of the utmost importance in Biblical study but can’t override that which we know from scripture. For example, Theissen’s depicts the Essenes, Saduccees (Chuza), and followers of Jesus in a certain, relatively concrete way. Much can be gathered from historical data although each of these groups is rarely discussed at length in scripture. The Essenes don’t show up at all. Even though you can make assumptions based on fragments of historical data one must ask why scripture isn’t concerned with a lengthy explanation of all the relationships Jesus had with all people-groups. When approaching scripture that way one is more likely to ask difficult historical questions with a sense of fluidity rather than inserting exact notions that could easily distract from the writer’s true intention.

Philosophy of Language via Wittgenstein and Kallenburg

Ludwig Wittgenstein (pronounced Victenstein) was one of the most important contributors to the development of a post-modern understanding of language. Brad Kallenburg has been heavily influenced by Wittgenstein. Wittengenstein’s understanding of language, life, and community are evident throughout Kallenberg’s “Live to Tell.” Some of these instances may be characterized in terms of reasonable associations between propositions, “rule-governed” language, and the question of a fundamental nucleus in which the meaning of a word is positioned.

Wittgenstein’s work may be categorized in terms of his early and latter work. Earlier writings were concerned with the reasonable associations between propositions and reality. All philosophical inquiries could be deciphered by presenting an explanation of the underlying reasoning of the relationship, which is one instance where the understanding of language is inserted into his philosophical views. He believed humans were limited by language. He said, “Like everything metaphysical the harmony between thought and reality is to be found in the grammar of the language.” There was a disconnection between the realm of thought and expression through language. Wittgenstein’s early scholarship influences Kallenberg’s understanding of language as a limiting endeavor in need of decoding through a process of reasoning. This is especially observable within Kallenberg’s atriculation of conversion experience. Kallenberg said, “conversion is a process because it involves progress toward fluency in a whole new language.” (68) The convert undergoes a certain amount of logical interpretation when introduced to a new societal and communal language. Kallenberg indicates a notion of saving faith as expressed in suggestive or propositional terms limiting the convert to insider language. (75) Converts engage in learning to “think in a new language” implying objective observation of their own life events (81). The idea of language-learning is one of many issues that predicate Kallenberg’s view of progressive conversion as converts must dicipher the religious language code.  

 Wittgenstein also promulgated the notion of “rule-governed” characteristics of language and the “language game” without attempting to necessitate stringent systems of rules for each language-game but in terms of its conventional disposition. He questioned whether language rules were communally and overtly taught and enforced. This notion is evident in Kallenberg’s discussion of John 6 where Jesus says “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him” noting the disciples’ perplexed response. By saying, “in me” Jesus symbolically implies public participation with Christ rather than literally eating Jesus’ flesh. (73) Jesus’ use of the phrase “in me” is bound and governed by communal, social rules enforcing Wittgenstein’s question of taught and enforced linguistic regulations.

For Wittgenstein there was no fundamental nucleus in which the meaning of a word is located nor was meaning to be regularly attributed to all uses of a particular word. He said, “We should, instead, travel with the word's uses through ‘a complicated network of similarities, overlapping and criss-crossing.’” Kallenberg similarly explains a story of conversion that lacked a definitive moment of “salvation” discouraging the use of “evangelical jargon.” He claims it is easily misunderstood and often “sub-bliblical in its modernism.” (68)