Acts 10: What Cornelius Knew: A Prophetic Think Tank

Acts 10 and What Cornelius Knew

We should never forget that we are living in an age that has mastered the world, and so prideful are we of it, but we have also traded what was once a more open intellectualism toward propositions of spiritual realities for pat formulas, slogans, cynicism, and outright denial that such things even exist or should be seriously entertained. I think what we see in the technological age is its only an illusion of human progress. The best we can say about our time is that it is has achieved a cold, pragmatic efficiency. But what was once accepted as open to investigation and worthy of serious inquiry, and taken as science, has now retreated into a mere gratuitous honor of any foreign superstition or a bold and conscienceless means of serving some “spiritual” or carnal agenda: pushing a product, protecting an investment, building up emotional or church capital, selling a book. I wonder sometimes if the kind of honest spirituality of the 1^st century is already dead, the potential for Wonder squashed under so many technological ones, existing only to the extent that the concept “spiritual” and “honest” is still in use in some way.

If you want to perfect example of this in Christian interpretation, look no further than our telling of the incident with Cornelius, generally accepted as the first gentile convert. We look at this and we only see good times and a very nice Holy Spirit for being so full of grace as to let someone into the church that doesn’t know his propitiatory sacrifice from a  hole in the ground.

To get right to it, I ask why, when I open conversations about Cornelius in Acts 10 with other believers, the default opinion seems to be that he knew nothing of Jesus and His claims, and had no certain informational foundation of faith upon which Peter could confirm and build. No knowledge of Jesus Messiah leading up to his being filled with the Spirit and becoming the first formal gentile member of the Church. If you want to see this cold efficiency and pragmatism of which I speak serve in everything we do, only for the corrupt affections of Man, look no further than this one.

And it’s not just Cornelius. I can’t recall one conversation on the topic of what new 1^st century believers knew and were expected to know before conversion where I did not find myself fighting. Even my son, who attends an Ivy League bible college, has experienced the same thing when talking to his abundantly knowledgeable and published professors. Why is this? I think it’s very clear that we are willing to supply unstated beliefs, knowledge, and motivations to any NT character as long as they are the same beliefs and motivations and knowledge that we hold now and held when we were converted to the faith. Keeps all of them in our family, instead of us having to join theirs.

Cornelius Ignorant of Jesus?

Let us just ponder the implications of this idea of Cornelius’s ignorance, and why it so comports with modernist sensibilities.

If we come to this conclusion relying only upon what the text in chapter 10 tells us, we must conclude:

1. Being filled with the Spirit,  and an example for all future converts (gentile or no), requires only that one listen to a certain speech by a Church leader.
2. Only some knowledge of the Hebrew God, not Jesus of Nazareth, is sufficient for salvation.
3. At best, what Cornelius knew about Jesus does not require specificity for him to have the quintessential example of saving faith, i.e., “salvation by faith alone,” the substitutionary atonement, or the Old Testament prophecies. He just needs perhaps to be aware of or believe them in a roundabout way. He knows “Torah,” but not any particular revelatory stream. He knows “faith,” but just “faith,” not one informed, awakened and increased upon a single, overarching subject.

Argument by Silence?

If we rely on this argument by silence, using only the text before us and not harmonizing it with what we already know from the whole, we must also make these conclusions:

1. It is never stated explicitly that the animals on the sheet in Peter’s vision represent the Gentiles. Are we to conclude that they only denote animals, that it’s only about the abrogation of dietary laws?
2. In V. 47 Peter commands baptism. Are we to conclude that without the rite of baptism all are lost and faith is not efficacious?
3. Peter says Jesus was hanged on a “tree,” or ξυλον. Should we make the argument, as some have, that he as nailed to an actual tree?

Well, this is quite ridiculous, of course.

The reason we would never be so foolish as to affirm the idea openly that it is permissible to construct doctrines on isolated verses and outside of an obvious universal, thematic context and common logic is because we know that this would be close to saying that it should not be unusual to find Leaves of Grass somewhere within your insurance policy. But the universal Bible context is routinely ignored or a bad one created when we try to defend some pet doctrine that it does not support, the usual defense driven by tradition, extra-biblical sources, bad reasoning and sometimes simply because we like that idea as an independent proposition.

The salvation by baptism groups go there, the Jewish dietary laws are indispensable in many congregations in part by using a verse here in Acts 10, and to some Adam was given a rod of an almond tree which was passed down through the ages and became a tree on which Christ we crucified, this last being resolved from what is perceived as missing Bible content that would serve to complete an important theory, properly confirmed by exclusively relying on extra-biblical sources like the Talmud, as demonstrated by the book The Rod of an Almond Tree in God’s Master Plan by one A. Michas Peter.

That there is no back-story with Cornelius pertaining to what he knew that does not speak of his ignorance of Jesus is perfect for the post-modern world, since all that matters is if your belief about him serves your interests. As Jean-François Lyotard said: “I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives …”

Meta-Narrative as Subtext

Now scriptural meta-examples are crucial to correctly exegeting anything, and Christians know that they can’t remove themselves from them entirely or there would be nothing to say with any reasonable confidence about the major claims of the Bible. But, we still live in post-modernity, and we deceive ourselves in thinking we are not being affected by it. We must put Cornelius as our faith meta-example, but only if it’s one that we viscerally like, regardless if it conforms to the universal biblical metanarrative and abundant evidence in respect to messianic epistemology. If Cornelius knew little to nothing then we are excused, as Christians, for knowing little to nothing, and not caring that we know nothing. It’s our feelings about the matter that is the only absolute, ala Wittgenstein.

First, there is the habit of selectively affirming and denying these back-stories on a presumption that the people here were not operating on opinions that they never felt the need to codify through an extended argument. But nowhere is there a deliberate argument in the New Testament presented to explain the Trinity, and with the possible exception of 1 John 5:7 the concept is never even clearly stated comprehensively. However, we correctly the plurality of God metanarrative in part from harmonizing such as Deuteronomy 6:4, Jude 20-21, 1 Peter 1:2, Eph 4:4-6, 2 Cor 13:14, Mat 28:19, Matt 3:16-17, et al.

Often in Acts, we don’t see Paul preaching the faith with the “gospel” mentioned. In fact, in Acts, the word only appears 6 times. We assume he preached the gospel, as opposed to such as a mere philosophical argument for God’s existence, a God from only a pure fideistic outpouring about his personal faith in Jesus, because such exclusive statements as 1 Co 15 demand the conclusion that faith stands upon the content of the “gospel” message, not to mention that the Pauline epistles use it 69 times.

Neither is there an occurrence of Jesus deliberately declaring “I am God.” We believe that He was because of a theological necessity pertaining to the requirements of the sacrifice in the redemption of the world, those above on the Trinity and those such as John 8:58, to name a few. So why would we gratuitously push the idea that Cornelius knew little to nothing about Jesus and his claims, particularly the words of the prophets regarding Him, particularly when Acts 10 itself contains evidence that he did (verse v.37)? I submit it is because, simply, we don’t like it. Because what Cornelius would have known that motivated him as a believer is not what we really care about, what we know, or want to know to be “saved.”

Is there a good reason to believe that Jesus and the Apostles thought faith righteous without knowledge of the prophets regarding the Messiah and that the Messiah Jesus fulfilled them?

What about Mars Hill?

I have heard the argument that there was no messianic epistemology necessary for salvation mostly by using Mars Hill in Acts 17 as an example. To make the argument, one must falsely assume, among others,  that there are no time gaps in the narrative. In Acts 17:33 we read after Paul’s speech: “so Paul departed from among them.” nothing happened until verse 34: “Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.”

If we’re to believe the no-gap theory, we also must accept that the most they knew of Christ before Paul or learned from Paul during his whole stay at Athens about Jesus and the prophets was that “He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” We must believe that these people believed because of a good story?

But, in context, from verse 1, we have an account of Paul preaching in Thessalonica:

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.”

This is Jews and Greeks. There is absolutely no warrant, except through bias, that the phrase some of them believed was only in reference to Jews. See an example of this here.

These Gentile theosebēs (θεοσεβής) were not ignorant of Jewish messianism and the Old Testament, and there is no reason to think that they could not be as knowledgeable and as enthusiastic as the Jews. The least that can be said about them is:

“the first gentile Christians were not pagans totally unacquainted with Judaism; they were people who had been attracted to Jewish teaching and ethics and who, as it were, lived on the periphery of the synagogues in the Diaspora but were not ready to accept totally the “yoke of the commandments” (especially circumcision).[1]

The centurion in all four gospels whose servant Jesus healed, of whom Jesus said had the greatest faith in all Israel, was not ignorant of the teachings of the synagogue, the messianic oracles and the claims of Jesus, as some have claimed. The man effectively told Jesus that he was convinced that He was the Messiah, and so developed was his faith that he declared that Jesus has the authority to command a miracle at a distance far out of eyesight. Again, this statement is the least that can be said about the Centurion:

This guy knew about Jesus. He knew enough about Jesus to send “elders of the Jews” to plead for him to come heal his servant. He knew enough about Jesus that he understood that he was unworthy of having Jesus come into his home. He knew enough about Jesus that he understood that Jesus could just say a word and his servant would be healed.[2]

Now, this is the least. What in this incident leads us to believe that, living in Judea for a very long tour with the Roman army, being fluent in the local language and absorbed by the culture, having every opportunity of learning the Jewish faith, attending to the synagogue and believing, being fully aware of everything going on around him, including the ministry of Jesus that, still, he knew little to nothing?

The Acts 10 Subject Context

When Paul was run out Thessalonica to Berea, Paul again preached Jesus by the prophets. We read in 17:11-12:

“these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.”

“Those things” of course refer to v. 3, or what the prophets said about the coming Messiah, of which Paul could have used nothing other than the Old Testament. After Athens, in Corinth, we have 18:4-5:

“And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.”

This is how we set our corrupt epistemic metanarrative for the New Testament. We assume ignorance of the people who put their faith in Christ because that was our experience, or because of a preconception that what motivates Christian faith is essentially groundless except by personal experience and preference, which is, by the way, the default for every other world religion.

• Of the 34 times in the Pauline epistles he uses the word “knowledge” (επιγνωσις), it is not predominantly used, as is often pushed, as an enemy. It’s not something that just “puffs up,” but is mostly something indispensable for salvation and sanctification:
• A lack of certain knowledge produces a reprobate mind. (Romans 1:28)
• Hypocrisy is the result of a “form” of knowledge which has no substance (Rom 2:20)
• Knowledge is required to discern sin. (Rom 3:20)
• Religious motivation without knowledge, particularly that of the nature of God’s righteousness, is a great sin. (Rom 10:2)
• Gods knowledge, though mysterious, is wonderful. (Rom 11:33)
• Paul wishes his congregation to have all knowledge of Christ. (1Co 1:5)
• Paul again wishes all knowledge for the congregation. (Ephesians 1:17)
• He asks that they have knowledge of the mystery of Christ. (Eph 3:4)
• ·He asks that they have knowledge of the Son of God. (Eph 4:13)
•  In Phillipi, Paul hopes their “love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment.” (Philippians 1:9)
•  Paul believed that he had lost everything in exchange for the “excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord,” that he may win Christ. This knowledge he believed founded his faith, seen in the next verse. (Phl 3:8)
•  In Colossians, Paul wishes that they are “filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding,” (Col 1:9) and that they are always increasing. (v.10)
• The New Man is “renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” (Col 3:10)
• In 1 Timothy, salvation is one with the knowledge of the truth. (Titus 2:4)

The condition of “ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” of which Paul speaks, is against a general or purely scholastic knowledge (2 Ti 3:7).

This “knowledge” is not primarily conclusive statements about Christ or theological topics or doctrines or effusive displays of emotion around our personal experiences, but these come directly out of and are predicated on the truth of the prophecies of Christ from the Old Testament. This latter cannot serve their intended purpose of proving God’s faithfulness, power, and omniscience. The only way to credential Jesus as Messiah, or in any way be efficacious to faith, is if Christ did fulfill those prophecies, Christ and the Prophetic Word being the effect and cause of “faith.” We have to know and believe them. This is for the Jews as well as the Greeks.

Acts begins with a long speech by Peter quoting  OT prophecy 5 times, after which the conclusion is made by Peter that Jesus is Lord and Christ. We forget that in 2:5 and 10, his audience, who were “pricked in their heart” (v.37) by this particular knowledge, resulted in a crush of baptisms, and they were not just Jews but gentile proselytes. This should be our clear metanarrative of the assumed epistemology in Acts as strictly messianic. But since we are Gentiles, we want the freedom to say we are saved being motivated by things other than the Prophets, and we like the theory that this stuff was only for the Jews. But does the evidence go there? I will be a little redundant, but we need to see it all together.

Acts 14:1: “And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.” What the Greeks bedeviled is set forth in the previous chapter that takes place in Antioch. The reader take note of this heavily laden, sharply prophetic message. Paul does not use philosophy, theological concepts, or even purely doctrinal arguments, but tries to convince that Jesus was the prophesied Christ by the prophets. This is where faith starts.

Acts 19:10 is clarified in v.8:

“And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.”

Acts 19:10: “And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”

In fact, Paul, before Agrippa, makes an exclusive statement about the content of his preaching which stands are the most ignored and with the most far-reaching implications of any of which I will quote you:

Acts 26:22-23: “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.”

Did you get that? He said that the only thing he ever preached was how Jesus fulfilled the prophets. This is a lot different than a sermon by Billy Graham or the Pope, or just about any out there you will hear, is it not?

Now, Cornelius. This is so easy.

Acts 10:35-39 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

Does this mean that you are saved by fearing God and working righteousness? What does that mean, really? What kind, quintessentially? Does this section mean that all you need to do is hear an inspiring sermon and the Holy Spirit will fall on you and you will be filled and/or saved by him?  That the Gentiles were admitted now into the church just because God said not to consider them unclean? Or that the Word of God has been fulfilled, God revealed, God’s name finally vindicated as to his power, nature, and reality, and this revelation is now prepared for consumption by of the entire world, without respect to persons, for their salvation?

Peter says that the Word of the prophets, “ye know.” He was speaking to the whole crowd, which included Cornelius. Then, Peter says to the same crowd “and we are witnesses of these things,” meaning how Jesus fulfilled those words of the prophets.

But that’s not all. A miracle happens right after Peter utters these words in closing to everyone in the room:

“⁴²And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.⁴³ To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.⁴⁴ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.”

Did you catch that? Whoever believes in “Him,” Jesus, by the witness of the prophets. Immediately after this confession, the Holy Spirit fell on everyone in attendance, and the Church began.

Folks, it’s not even close. It’s not even debatable, and I’m not just speaking of whether or not Cornelius knew about Jesus, the prophets and his fulfillment of them, I’m saying it’s not even up for debate what kind of revelation  God intended that we find, honestly examine, know and love for salvation.

And the moral of the story is…

I hope this has served to establish that there is more than one context to scripture, and there is only one overriding context pertaining to a revelational subject, Personal and information, which brings salvation. Because we have ignored this it is the reason why the Church is slowly being destroyed. Because we conceive of contexts as primarily applying to Testament, Book, Chapter, and Verse, we have given ourselves the freedom to deny the use of the Argument from Silence for atheist deniers but give ourselves the freedom to use it at will.

There is a context that applies to themes, to the cultural and historical ethos, to an epistemic context, and many others that are taken from scripture (and some from without scripture) that should influence what exegetical conclusions we make that would be drawn directly from the words on the page. If Jesus declares some truth and does not say “this is God’s will,” we are not to infer that what he said is not God’s will. Because he said nothing about abortion is not a license to conclude that he did not care about the practice.

Why do we say that the Greeks were unmotivated by the Prophets in their faith because Acts 10 does not say explicitly “Cornelius believed the word of the prophet concerning Jesus Christ”? Because we don’t believe it.

Why do we like the idea that the Thief on the Cross knew nothing of the Old Testament predictions of Messiah, and the claims of Jesus, before being nailed there? Well, again, we are in an age of autonomous trans-humanism, where the personal opinions and experiences of people determine Truth, and the constant artificial advancement of human biology and perception is the only possible way for us to become more than we are.

Your admission into a Christian organization, and the conferral upon you (in some sense) as “saved,” is dependent only upon you believing some slogan, that “Jesus is Lord,” or a set of doctrinal bullets, or a dream you had, or that a priest forgave your sins and confirmed you, or anything of biblical truth or philosophical argument you so wish. Only to the extent that a new book, a new scholar or a new method will improve our perception of these relative trifles to their founding prophetic predicates will we reform our congregations. This is what brings down the church from within: the constant inclusion of the smug lost within its body, with no sure means of distinguishing between them from the truly biblically motivated.

Our field and pulpit evangelism and the content of preaching in all confessions are corrupt. Let’s be honest, it’s not like in the Book of Acts at all. We are neither like Peter or Cornelius.

[1] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/christianity.html

[2] http://camerongwaltney.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/a-centurions-servant-a-widows-son/

Please see: Christ and the Norming of Transcendence: Passing by Nehushtan

Prophesying, Preaching, and the Prophetic: Passing by Nehushtan

Matthew 5 and the Adultery of the Heart: Passing by Nehushtan