In the life of nations, there are special moments when a long cherished hope is realised. It might be Australian Federation, realised in 1901 after 20 years of planning and agitation. That event brought 6 states into a new Federation, the Commonwealth of Australia. It might be the bringing down of the Berlin Wall, which divided Berlin from 1961 and 1989. Now there is no such thing as East and West Berlin… only Berlin. The two become one. A new people, a new nation, a new city was formed. The most recent nation to be formed is South Sudan, after many years of war with the north.
No such beginning is easy. The United States was only formed after a war of independence. Even Australia’s peaceful transition to a federation involved almost 20 years of agitation, consultations, conferences, and referenda.
Well, what we read about today is nothing less than the official unification and federation of the new people of God under the Lordship of Christ. With the events that were read for us, a change has occurred in the constitution of the new people of God. There is no longer Jew or Gentile. All are included as one body in Christ Jesus. And so their national distinctives are declared no longer to divide them. Dividing walls have come down. And new bonds of friendship and fellowship are forged.
But just as in the political sphere, so in the spiritual. Such change come at a cost. Momentus change comes with upheaval, consternation, effort and sacrifice.
The two most prominent characters in this story are Cornelius and Peter. They aren’t the most important actors in this drama. The most important actor is working from home. But Cornelius and Peter are the ones Luke talks most about.
First, Cornelius. Who is Cornelius? Well, he might have been a Gentile, but he was no pagan either. Luke pictures him more like a saint than a sinner. Chapter 10 verse 2:
“He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need [literally, gave much alms to the people] and prayed to God regularly.” (NIV)
Again, verse 4, from the angel:
"Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.” (NIV)
Yet again, from his messengers, verse 22:
“He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people [lit, all the nation of the Jews].” (NIV)
And from his own mouth, verse 31:
“God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor.” (NIV)
Any church would be blessed to have a man so described as their minister. A leader, a man’s man, generous, fears God. In Acts, we need to bracket Cornelius with Tabitha, Barnabas, and Apollos. Only the descriptions of those great saints rival that of Cornelius. In the Bible, we can rank him with the uncircumcised Abraham and Job. He is like Abraham & Job, an uncircumcised man that fears God and obeys him. If faith leads to good works, it was Cornelius’ faith that led to his good works. Cornelius is like the 120 in Jerusalem prior to Acts 2. They too were praying as they waited for God’s Spirit. Cornelius is like the Samaritans who believe the gospel but are waiting for the Apostles to receive the Spirit (Acts 8:4-17).
Cornelius might have been a Roman Centurion from Italy, but the evidence suggests he also knew the Old Testament hope. Peter’s address to Cornelius is not like Paul’s in Acts 14 and 17. There Paul speaks to pagan audiences, and doesn’t mention the Old Testament scriptures. But Peter’s speech is different. When Peter says ‘all the Prophets bear witness’ (Acts 10:43), we can assume Cornelius didn’t need to ask ‘What Prophets are they?’ He knew about the Old Testament Prophets. Because Cornelius was a God-fearer. Cornelius was part of a well-known class of Gentiles, frequently from the nobility, who gathered around the synagogue, who learnt from the law of Moses that a thousand years before had attracted the Queen of Sheba to Solomon in Jerusalem. And in response to this hope, Cornelius sought to do good to God’s Old Testament people, the Jews.
But not only had Cornelius learnt the Old Testament hope. He had also already, before Peter’s arrival, learned of it’s New Testament fulfilment. Before Peter arrived, Cornelius had heard the gospel of the Lord Jesus. For this is what Peter says in Chapter 10 verses 36-38 in the NIV:
“You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached-- how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him[1].” (NIV)
Cornelius already knew about the good news, the gospel. Cornelius has already been evangelized. That’s what Peter says. Cornelius and his companions[2] had already heard about the news of Jesus Christ. Cornelius knows, before Peter gets to Caesarea by the sea, that peace can be found through Jesus Christ, the Lord of all. These Gentiles know about the message of Jesus, about the events that took place, about Jesus death and resurrection.
Where did they learn it? Probably from the local Jewish Synagogue. Possibly after Pentecost, with the returning Jewish pilgrims. Possibly as the result of Philip the Evangelist’s preaching. Most likely, they learnt it from the Christian believers who fled Jerusalem following Stephen’s martyrdom.
But now they have got another witness beside the Old Testament prophets. They have an eyewitness of the whole Jesus event. They have Peter, in their presence.
Second, let’s remember Peter. Last week, we saw Peter touring the churches in coastal Judea. He healed the sick and raised the dead, just like his Lord.
And what is the portrait of Peter that we have? Was he like George Washington, a great General who had the vision and commitment to fight for and found a new United States of America? Was he like Henry Parks at Tenterfield in 1889, setting a vision for the Commonwealth of Australia 12 years before it came to be.
No, he is more like Forrest Gump, who is self confessedly not a smart man, but does what he knows to be right and achieves spectacularly great results. Peter is more like Stephen Bradbury. Stephen Bradbury won Australia’s first Winter Olympics gold medal. But he would be the first to say he wasn’t the fastest ice skater on the rink that day. But he was in the right place at the right time, keeping his feet and head, and following the coaches’ instructions. And doing so, he rewrote history (and become a legend to all Aussies everywhere).
Well, Peter is no great visionary. But he does receive a great vision. He is a Christian leader whose obedience to the Lord led him to bring about a great thing. Because again, it is actually Jesus doing the work. Like many of us, Jesus works from home. Jesus is planning and executing his mission from the right hand of God. And he is doing it through his men on the ground, Peter and Cornelius.
Now, Peter has been called from Joppa to Caesarea by the Sea. But unless God had worked him over first, Peter wouldn’t have gone. He needed to see the heavenly vision three times. He needed to hear the voice from heaven, ‘Don’t consider unclean what God has made holy’.
What Peter saw was a large picnic blanket lowered from heaven. It might have had ham and salted pork, pastrami and mortadella, prawns, crab and lobster. And we think, ‘Yum, sounds good, what better vision to receive when you’re hungry!’ And Peter said, ‘No way Lord, I don’t eat unclean food’. And we would say, ‘That’s OK, Peter, we’ll have your share!’ But imagine if the picnic blanket had dog and cat, rat and kangaroo, whale and crocodiles and snakes. Perhaps you’d think differently then. For it might well have had those animals that Peter saw. And there are people walking God’s earth who eat those things. (And there is nothing wrong with that as far as God is concerned). And God wants Peter to join the feast. The voice said, ‘Get Up, Kill and Eat’. Bon appetite.
We’d pretty soon lose our appetite. I’m sure we’d need to be really convinced before we killed and ate. Because Peter would have had to have overcome a lifetime of inculcation and enculturation.
Peter needed to see the vision three times. He needed the Spirit to tell him to go down to his visitors. He needed to hear Cornelius’ matching vision. He needed at least one angel involved. He needed to see the Spirit’s manifestation by giving the Gentile believers other languages. And Luke needed to write about it three times. Notice how long the reading was. I got ________________ to read that long reading on purpose. So that you would see that Luke recounted the events, not just once, when it happened, not just twice, when Peter and Cornelius meet each other, but even a third time, when Peter gets criticised in Jerusalem and has to explain himself. That’s how momentus these events are. God, Peter, Cornelius and Luke are saying it again and again. Once, twice, three times for the dummies.
Why did the message have to be reiterated again and again? Because that day, when Cornelius and Peter met, the Jewish food laws, given by God himself and followed for 1400 years, were officially made obsolete. And that was simply the first of many changes that would follow. Jesus foretold it when he declared in Mark 7 that all food is clean. And now, to make the two one, the Jews and Gentiles one people under Christ, big changes must come in.
Have you ever met someone you’ve heard a lot about, someone famous? I have. And I can tell you, there are three instances where I’ve acted stupidly. Twice I said dopey things, once I was overawed and couldn’t say anything. Perhaps there are other times when I’ve held it together in the presence of greatness. But they don’t easily come to mind.
Well, so it is with Cornelius. So great is his expectation at the arrival of Peter, that he acts inappropriately. He drops at his feet in worship of Peter. After all, the angel said of Peter:
‘He shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' (Acts 11:14 NIV)
Well, while his response is wrong, both we and Peter can understand it. Because there’s been such a big build up. What is happening in Cornelius’ house is bigger than just him and Peter. They both know it. After the meeting, some things among God’s people will never be the same.
In many ways, the story about Cornelius is not about new things at all. We’ve seen the preaching, seen the faith, seen the good works, seen the tongues all before. Every event in this story has a parallel previously in Acts.
It is not about the new, but about the who. This story is not about what new things have happened, but to whom they’ve happened. The story is about whether the things that have already happened to Jewish believers will also happen to Gentile believers. Is God a respecter of persons, giving Jews who have faith privileges that he doesn’t give to Gentiles with faith. Will the Gentiles who believe only ever be second-class citizens in God’s kingdom, the wood choppers and water carriers, or are they now full members of God’s New family?
To put it another way, this story answers the question, ‘Will Christianity be divided into two until Christ returns?’ Will we have the Jews, sticking to their divine dietary distinctives, and the God-fearing Gentiles, who can hover around the edges, but never enter into full fellowship with Jewish Christians because of the food laws?
Peter’s conclusion was hard won. It was dragged reluctantly from him at first. But his resolve was hardened through what he saw and heard. And in the face of everything he had seen, his answer is a decided, ‘Not two but one’. Acts 10:34-35:
“I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.”
God accepts the Jew whose faith works. And God accepts the Gentile whose faith works. Jew and Gentile, accepted by God on the same basis. All of this made abundantly clear by giving the Gentiles the manifestation of speaking other languages by the Spirit, in exactly the same way that it happened at Pentecost.
So Peter in defending himself says this. Acts 11:17-18:
So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life." (NIV)
It was God himself who sanctioned and approved Peter’s actions, with the testimony of the threefold vision to Peter, the complementary vision to Cornelius, the Spirit speaking to Peter, the Angel speaking to Cornelius, and the Gentiles speaking in other languages, just as the Jews had at Pentecost. God himself, who erected the scaffolding of the food laws, and who said Israel must be separated from the nations, now brings it all down. The wall has come down.
For God has granted people from the nations repentance unto life. God gave repentance not just to Jews, but also to Gentiles. They too had Jesus Christ as Lord. So they too had forgiveness of sins.
The Angel told Cornelius he would hear the message by which he would be saved. What was that message? Was it any different to what we’ve heard so far in Acts? No. We’ve seen it all before.
It is the good news of peace through ‘Jesus Christ, who is Lord of All’ (Acts 10:36). Peter elaborates the message, by recounting his role as an eyewitness. Peter adds that he himself ate and drank with Jesus, just as Peter is about to eat with Cornelius. (And what a wonderful confirmation of acceptance into God’s family that would have been for Cornelius, to know that one who shared table fellowship with Jesus was now going to join him at his table.) But the message is still the same. It is all about Jesus’ life and good works, his death, his resurrection, his Lordship. Peter confesses that Jesus is the judge of the living and dead. And then Peter concludes his short unsurprising unoriginal sermon with this. Acts 10:43:
‘All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.’ (NIV)
The twin truths of the Apostles’ Creed: ‘He will come to judge the living and the dead’ and ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins’. Jesus is the judge with the right to remit and forgive sins. Jesus is Lord of all who offers good news of peace.
Have you accepted this good news of peace? Jesus Christ is Lord of all. Whoever believes in him (whether Jew or Gentile), receives forgiveness of sins through his name. He is the only way to be saved Peter accepted it and was saved. Cornelius accepted it and was saved. The Jew or the Gentile is saved the same way. Their salvation was manifested in the same way.
Why not make sure you have accepted it? Even if you’ve heard the gospel before today, well, today is a good day to accept it again. The fact that Cornelius had heard the gospel before didn’t stop him believing it again when Peter delivered it. See it as the message that can save you and your household, as Cornelius did. Receive it and be saved.
Mum, why is the Queen of England our Queen? I mean, she is nice and all, and she looks good in yellow, but why is she important to us? Dad, how come we’re interested in the wedding of William and Kate? How come we have a Federal and a State member of parliament? Wouldn’t it be better to just have one? It would be a lot cheaper!
The answer to all these questions is historical. It involves telling a story, about Captain Cook and Arthur Phillip, and Henry Parks, about the movement of people and movement among people, about things that happened 300, 200, and 100 years ago.
If God breathed Leviticus, and the food laws, how come I can eat pork and prawn and lobsters? And how come Jewish believers can eat with non-Jewish believers. How come there are Jews who are normal Anglican ministers, eating with Gentiles and ignoring the food laws?
Because of what Jesus Christ did with Peter and Cornelius. Luke’s history explains your reality.
Let’s pray
My answer to these three questions is ‘Yes’, ‘Yes’, and ‘Yes’. Let me explain.
Luke makes it very clear that our response to God is a gift itself that God gives.
Acts 5:31 God exalted this [one, ie Jesus Christ] leader and saviour to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. (tou/ton o` qeo.j avrchgo.n kai. swth/ra u[ywsen th/| dexia/| auvtou/ Îtou/Ð dou/nai meta,noian tw/| VIsrah.l kai. a;fesin a`martiw/n))
Acts 11:18 Therefore, also to the gentiles God gave repentance into life (a;ra kai. toi/j e;qnesin o` qeo.j th.n meta,noian eivj zwh.n e;dwken).
Acts 5:31 is part of Peter preaching ’all the words of this life’ to his Jewish compatriots (pa,nta ta. r`h,mata th/j zwh/j tau,thj: Acts 5:20). The result of Jesus Christ being exalted to the right hand of the Father (note the infinitival purpose/result clause) is that Jesus Christ gives (nb aorist active of di,dwmi) repentance to Israel. Repentance is etymologically a ‘change of mind’. Thus, Peter declares that Jesus Christ is exalted to give Israel a change of mind. It is a gift that he gives.
I note that most modern commentators I have tend to see Acts 5:31 as referring to an opportunity to repent[3]. The exception is Kistemaker, who says ‘Although salvation involves the complete turnabout of a sinner’s mind, Peter declares that both repentance and remission of sins are gifts of God’[4]. While it is possible that it may refer to an opportunity to repent and be forgiven, it is not actually what Peter says. Peter’s construction is that Jesus Christ has been exalted to give ‘repentance’, not ‘an opportunity to repentance’. That is, it is a purpose or result clause. The reason for Christ’s exaltation is to give repentance itself, not an opportunity to repent[5].
One might counter by saying, ‘Why doesn’t Israel then all repent, given the verse says that Jesus gives repentance to Israel?’ I might counter by saying, perhaps ‘all Israel is not Israel’ (Romans 9:6). That is how Paul begins his answer as to why all Israel have not obtained the salvation offered to them . But even if I am wrong, and Acts 5:31 is a reference to only the opportunity to repent[6], it is much harder to say this of Acts 11:18, where Peter is using the fact of God having given the Spirit to Cornelius and his companions to defend his eating with the Gentiles. The comment ‘God has given repentance’ is said not in the midst of preaching that people repent (and thus implicitly speaking of the opportunity that the hearers therefore have to repent), but in the midst of the church attempting to understand what has actually happened with a group of Gentiles, that is, as to why they have already repented. The verb di,dwmi clearly indicates a gift. God is the subject, repentance is the object. It means what it says, that God gave the gentiles repentance unto life.
That God gives the gift of repentance in 11:18 is born out by several of those same commentators who only saw an opportunity to repent indicated by 5:31[7]. Let’s start with Ben Witherington III. He says this on Acts 11:18:
‘[Luke] is focussing on the change wrought by God by means of the Spirit in Cornelius and his kin’[8]
Here are two others:
‘God has given repentance unto life to the Gentiles. In Judaism, repentance was seen as a divine gift...’[9]
“The claim that God has granted repentance ... implies that ‘God gives the Gentiles not simply the possibility of repentance, but repentance itself’. [10]
As far as I can see, it is only contrary theological presuppositions that would mean someone would want to read it another way[11].
But the Cornelius account also raises some theological issues. How are we to describe Cornelius prior to his meeting with Peter? Does Cornelius have faith before Peter shares the gospel with him? If he does, how did his faith come about? If he doesn’t, how do we explain his good works? On top of this, how do we understand the falling of the Spirit on Cornelius AFTER he has lived a life of good works?
As an Anglican minister, I first note that the 39 Articles teach that works not springing from faith are sin.
Article XIII Of Works before Justification
Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or, as the school-authors say, deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.
The last line of Article XIII is actually an allusion Romans 14:23 which says, ‘and everything that is not from faith is sin’ (pa/n de. o] ouvk evk pi,stewj a`marti,a evsti,n). How does this compare with Cornelius, of whom it is said, before he meets Peter, and before the Spirit comes upon him, that he is full of good works? Let’s note what is actually said about Cornelius.
There was a man in Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment. 2 He was a devout man and feared God along with his whole household. He did many charitable deeds for the Jewish people and always prayed to God. 3 At about three in the afternoon he distinctly saw in a vision an angel of God who came in and said to him, "Cornelius!" 4 Looking intently at him, he became afraid and said, "What is it, Lord?" And he told him, "Your prayers and your acts of charity have come up as a memorial offering before God. (Acts 10:1-4 NASB)
Moreover,
they said, "Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you." (Acts 10:22) 34
Then Peter began to speak: "I now realise how true it is that God does not show favouritism 35 but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. (Acts 10:34-35 NASB)
Of course, it is clear that these things are said of Cornelius before the Spirit falls upon the Gentiles and is received by them.
It would appear that those who would affirm Article 13, like myself, are on the horns of a dilemma. Either Cornelius was not a believer, but his works were acceptable before God, and this meant that he deserved further grace. Therefore, Article 13 is mistaken, for his works here do seem to be the reason why Cornelius is said to receive further revelation. Presumably, this might continue to apply, so that good Muslims, for example, might receive further revelation. Or in the alternative, Cornelius was a believer, but the fact that he had not received the Holy Spirit yet shows that a previous work of the Holy Spirit is not required for someone to exercise faith and good works, and thus Article 10 is mistaken, which says, that God’s grace must prevent us (ie, go before) so that we can have a good will and do good works.
I don’t think I’m on the horns of a dilemma, but let me first state my opinion about Cornelius. My opinion of him is that Cornelius is presented as a ‘God-fearer’, a technical designation of a group of gentiles who were attracted to the ethical monotheism of the diaspora synagogues, and consequently worshipped the one true God as revealed in the Old Testament scriptures, though they did not submit to circumcision nor food laws nor become proselytes.
That many of these people already had faith in God (though they may not have known about Jesus Christ) is not surprising. All of the early Christians mentioned before Acts chapter 10 were ethical monotheists and worshippers of YHWH before they became Christians. Their repentance was not from idolatry (in the sense that, say, the Thessalonians turned from idols: 1 Thessalonians 1:9), but their repentance was first of all Christological. They needed to submit to Christ Jesus as Lord. They changed their thinking and their attitude to Jesus Christ.
No doubt, this led to all manner of repentances. But all of the preaching of Peter in the early part of Acts is to worshippers of YHWH, not pagans. Almost all of Jesus’ teaching during his earthly ministry was to worshippers of YHWH. Schnabel makes this pertinent comment in agreement:
‘Peter’s sermon before an audience of God-fearing Gentiles in Caesarea differs in two ways from sermons before Jewish audiences: first, there is no proof from Scripture but only a general reference to the testimony of the prophets ....; second, there is no reproach for the rejection of Jesus, and instead Peter provides a survey of Jesus’ life and death. Compared with sermons before Gentile audiences, Peter’s sermon before the God fearers in Caesarea lacks, first, the typical proclamation of the one true God, the Creator of the world, and second, the exhortation to repent and turn to the one true God. Rudolf Pesch comments, “Peter instead describes in unique detail what these listeners who have already been heard by God (Acts 10:31) need to hear: he informs them about the sending, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, about his appearances, and about his witnesses and their commission (Acts 10:37-42).’[12]
So the nature of the repentance that God granted the God-fearers was primarily pertaining to Jesus Christ and his identity.
I suspect, however, that Schnabel underestimates how much Cornelius actually knew before Peter arrived in Caesarea. The RV reads of Acts 10:36-39 reads.
36 The word which he sent unto the childrenof Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all)-- 37 that saying ye yourselves know (Acts 10:37 u`mei/j oi;date to. geno,menon r`h/ma kaqV o[lhj th/j VIoudai,aj( avrxa,menoj av), which was published throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38 even Jesus of Nazareth, how that God anointed him 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.
Peterson comments, ‘It is also possible that Philip was in some way directly responsible for this knowledge …, perhaps founding a Jewish Christian community in Caesarea which provided the stimulus for Gentiles like Cornelius to learn more.’[13]
So I think Cornelius not only knew about the Old Testament prophets, but he also knew about the Gospel.
It is worth remembering that the events of Acts are foundational for New Testament salvation history. As foundational for Christianity, we would expect some aspects to not be paradigmatic. For example, such things as Apostles are definitely foundational. Apostles are unrepeatable.
So it is somewhat anachronistic to apply categories of later theology drawn from Scripture to early, foundational, sui generis, and therefore not necessarily paradigmatic events. The events in Acts are not necessarily prescriptive, but are descriptive.
Nevertheless, I will do it. So I would say that Cornelius was a believer in God. He had real and genuine faith. His faith worked in love. His good works evidenced his faith. His works are not an example of Article 13, or contradict Article 10, which says the Spirit must inspire our works, but rather they are an example of Article 12:
XII Of Good Works
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s Judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.
Someone might say, ‘but the text says that Cornelius receives the Spirit AFTER he has done the good works’. For we read in Acts 10:44-48:
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
My answer to this is that God worked a secret work by his Spirit beforehand in Cornelius, which was later manifested in a salvation historical special event, the speaking of xenolalia.
How can I say that? Aren’t I contradicting the Scriptures, which say that Cornelius then ‘received’ the Spirit, for the sake of my systematic theology?
My answer is that I am inferring that this is a reality from the wider context of the bible.
On the night before he died, Jesus said that the Apostles already ‘know’ the Spirit. This is because the Spirit ‘dwells with’ them. The one they know and who dwells with them ‘will be in’ them in the future (John 14:17).
John 14:17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you (u`mei/j ginw,skete [present] auvto,( o[ti parV u`mi/n me,nei [present][14] kai. evn u`mi/n e;stai [future]). (NASB)
We see here that the Holy Spirit has already been with the disciples prior to Pentecost. After all, Jesus the Spirit-filled-Christ had been with them for the last three years[15]. But John 14:17 seems to suggest more than simply that the Apostles know the Spirit because Christ had the Spirit and was with them. The implication is that the Apostles have had some personal experience of the Spirit before Pentecost. As Barrett says, ‘the presents anticipate the future gift...’[16], and Morris, ‘The present “he abideth with you”, points to a continuing reality, just as “shall be in you” indicates a future certainty’[17].
That the disciples should have familiarity with the ministry of the Spirit is not that surprising, given that Jesus expected Nicodemus to have known about the Spirit’s work of giving new birth as an ‘earthly thing’ (John 3:3-12). Nicodemus is Israel’s teacher and should have known this. He should have known this from the Old Testament. Moreover, Jesus says no-one can enter the Kingdom of God without the Spirit’s birth. There is nothing that suggests this is limited to the New Testament, a fact shown by the fact that Jesus demands the new birth of Nicodemus.
So I take it that Jesus expected the Spirit’s secret work in all who are born again, whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament. As G A Cole says: ‘My own view is that OT believers were regenerated by the Spirit... Jesus expected Nicodemus as a teacher of Israel to understand the teaching about the new birth and the Spirit’s role in it (John 3:10). His OT should have been sufficient . .... With the OT language of “circumcised hearts,” “hearts of flesh” replacing “hearts of stone,” and “a new spirit,” we are moving in the same conceptual field as the NT ideas of regeneration and new birth.”[18]
Although the Spirit is not mentioned by name in the passage, I might ‘join-the-theological-dots’ to see the Spirit’s work underlying the Father’s revelation that Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ (Matthew 16:17). Trinitarian theology suggest that it is the person of the Spirit who operates and brings about God’s purposes in God’s world.
It also begs some other questions. Was God’s Spirit absent in the missions of the 12 and the 70? Did the Holy Spirit have nothing to do with the authority Jesus gave his disciples over the evil spirits? (Matthew 10:1-42, especially 20; Luke 9:1-6, 10:1-24). When Jesus taught about prayer in Luke 11:1-13, was his promise that God who give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks for Him only after Jesus rose from the dead? Then was the Lord’s Prayer only for after Jesus’ resurrection?
I would rather say that the Spirit, who moves where he wants like the wind (John 3:8), has been very busy, albeit in a less conspicuous and dramatic way, amongst God’s people from the creation of the world (Genesis 1:2). So I think all the saints, whether OT or NT, are regenerated by the Spirit. Cornelius before the Spirit comes upon him in the manifestation of xenolalia is no different to Peter, James or John, Mary Magdelene, Simeon or Anna before Pentecost. I expect that the Spirit was working in a secret way prior to his work in a manifest way.
[1] The RV reads: Acts 10:36-39 36 The word which he sent unto the childrenof Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all)-- 37that saying ye yourselves know (Acts 10:37 u`mei/j oi;date to. geno,menon r`h/ma kaqV o[lhj th/j VIoudai,aj( avrxa,menoj av), which was published throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38 even Jesus of Nazareth, how that God anointed him 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. Peterson comments, ‘It is also possible that Philip was in some way directly responsible for this knowledge …, perhaps founding a Jewish Christian community in Caesarea which provided the stimulus for Gentiles like Cornelius to learn more.’: Peterson, Acts: Pillar, 337
[2] Note the plural u`mei/j oi;date
[3] I’ve looked at Bock, I H Marshall, Fitzmyer, Witherington, David Peterson, Longenecker.
[4] S J Kistemaker, Acts: NTC, 206
[5]I note that, not surprisingly, Calvin agrees with me. On Acts 5:31, Calvin says: ‘They [the apostles] show in this place how Christ reigns to save the people, to wit, when he brings his own to repentance, and does reconcile them to God through the remission of sins. ... Furthermore, we have declared before what the word repentance does signify, to wit, that it is an inward turning of man unto God, which shows itself afterwards by external works. For Christ gives us the Spirit of regeneration for this cause, that he may renew us inwardly, to the end that a new life may afterward follow the newness of the mind and heart. And if it belongs to Christ to give repentance, then it follows that it is not a thing which is in man’s power. And surely, seeing that it is a certain wonderful reformation, (or fashioning again,) which makes us new creatures, repairs in us the image of God, brings us out of the bondage of sin to the obedience of righteousness, it is a thing as impossible for men to convert themselves as to create themselves. Repentance is, I grant, a voluntary conversion, but from where do we have this will, except only because God changes our heart, that it may be made fleshy of a stoney heart; flexible, of hard and stubborn, and finally, righteous of wicked, (Ez 11:19). And this comes to pass when Christ regenerates thus by his Spirit. Neither is this given in a moment, but it must be increased daily during our whole life, until we be fully joined to God, which shall be then when we have put off the flesh’ Comm Acts, 218.
[6] It is possible that the construction can refer to ‘an opportunity for repentance’. Sometimes in Scripture and in context a word can stand as shorthand for a phrase.
[7] The exception is I H Marshall, who continues to use the language of ‘opportunity to repent’.
[8] B Witherington III, The Acts of the 365 fn 150
[9] D Bock, Acts: BECNT, 409
[10] D Peterson, Acts: Pillar, 349. Peterson also cites Tannehill in a footnote to this proposition, but I don’t have the book from which he cites him.
[11] It is interesting that Calvin speaks of this passage thus: ‘This member, to give repentance, may be expounded two manner of ways; either that God granted to the Gentiles place for repentance, when as he would have his gospel preached to them’ or that he circumcised their hearts by his Spirit, as Moses says, (Deut 30:6), and made them fleshly hearts of stony hearts, as says Ezekiel (Ezek 11:19). For it is a work proper to God alone to fashion to to beget men again, that they may bein to be new creatures; and it agrees better with this second sense; it is not so much racked, and it agrees better with the phraseology of Scripture.’: Comm, Acts, 464. He sees that it is both theologically and exegetically best to interpret the passage as it actually reads, that God gives repentance, and not just an opportunity to repent.
[12] E J Schnabel, Early Christian Mission: Jesus and the Twelve, 1:713-4
[13] Peterson, Acts: Pillar, 337
[14] PAI3S I remain
[15] The opinion of Carson seems to be that the Spirit is with them by being in Christ.
[16] C K Barrett, John, 387
[17] Leon Morris, John: NICNT, 650.
[18] G A Cole, He Who Gives Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 144-5, ‘Excursus: Where OT Believers Regenerate”