(1) On one end of the spectrum were full-fledged Jews, either born into the faith or converted (i.e., proselytes) and (in the case of the men) circumcised. (2) On the other end of the spectrum were “pure” Gentile pagans who had no attachment at all to Judaism. And (3) there was a intermediate status: people (but usually men—women were not deterred from full conversion by the prospect of circumcision) who were strongly attracted to the teachings of Judaism and its vision of one God who demanded righteous living and was Himself not as morally disreputable as were most of the Greek, Roman and Oriental “gods”, but who were reluctant to undergo circumcision and to submit themselves to such rigorous restrictions on living as the dietary laws (kosher) and the Sabbath laws.
Excursus on “Proselytes”: Luke’s use of the phrase “Jews and Greeks” (Acts 18:5) to describe the makeup of the synagogue in Corinth has been seen by D.R. de Lacey (“Epistles to the Corinthians” II.b. IVP-NBD) as signalling “Jews and proselytes”, not just Jews and “God-fearers” (which I consider equally possible). Another author describes the typical reaction to Paul’s synagogue preaching in the Diaspora as a division between “Israelites by birth” who rejected the message and “Gentiles (i.e., the proselytes and God-fearers)” receiving it joyfully (“Dispersion” IV., IVP-NBD). If these scholars are right, this is further evidence that circumcised Gentiles (i.e., the first generation “converts”)—at least in Gentile lands— were not completely integrated into Jewishness, but continued to be identified as “proselytes”. In OT times the proselyte (Hebr. ger) severed ties with his/her former family and completely identified with Israel, often being assigned to a new tribal genealogy (cf. Ruth’s statement to Naomi: “But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16 NIV).
This third group is variously labeled in the written sources. Usually they are called “God-fearers” or “God-worshipers”. Although Luke uses several variants of this terminology, it is certain that he used all variants to refer to this single category of persons.
But before we explore the role of these “God-fearers” in Acts we must briefly touch on the origin of the term. In the pagan world “fear” was the dominant attitude in relation to the world of the gods. People had no particular reason to “love” the gods, any more than one “loved” manifestations of fickle power in nature: floods, earthquakes, thunderstorms or the like. One feared these things and did what one could to protect oneself from their destructive power. Nevertheless, in the OT there is a use of the term "fear of God" with reference to non-Israelites, which seems to indicate what we might call common decency and the observance of law and order. Abraham wrongly fears that in King Abimelech's city "there is no fear of God" and that he might be killed in order to take his wife from him (Gen 20:9-11).
In Old Testament Israelite religion one was supposed to “love” the God of Israel (Deut 6:5; 11:1; 13:3; 30:6; Josh 22:5; 23:11; Psa 31:23; 116:1), but this did not exclude what is called “the fear of the LORD” (2Chr 19:7,9; Job 28:28; Psa 19:9; 34:11; 111:10; Prov 1:7,29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10; 10:27; 14:26-27), which the wisdom writer calls “the beginning (better translated: the best part) of wisdom”. All pious Israelites were supposed to seek or have the “fear of the LORD”. But in a few passages like 2 Chron 5:6 (in the Greek translation, the LXX) there is a distinction between (pious) Israelites and “those who fear (the LORD)” (πᾶσα συναγωγὴ Ισραηλ καὶ οἱ φοβούμενοι). This second group are in all likelihood Gentiles who attached themselves to the pious community of Israel without becoming circumcised full-fledged Jews, Luke’s “God-fearers”.
Since both Luke and Paul tend to use “God” (θεός) to denote God the Father (and rarely also for the Trinity), while reserving the term “the Lord” for Jesus, he understandably wishes to avoid the use of "Lord" in this expression, and alters 2 Chronicles 5's “Lord-fearers” to “God-fearers” in order to designate this group of Gentiles, who fear the God of the Jews. Luke uses two variant expressions to denote this class: “God-fearers” and “God-worshipers”. The former is limited to the first half of Acts, where the mission of the Church is primarily to the Jews, and the latter expression to the second half, where his focus is almost exclusively on the mission to the Gentiles. “God-fearers” is a Jewish term, while “God-worshipers” is the Gentile equivalent for this group.
The Gospel writers have already noted interest in Jesus by Gentiles, whether in the second or third of the above categories. There was the case of the “Canaanite woman” in Mark 7:22-28, whom Jesus at first rebuffed, saying that his mission was to the Israelites, not Gentile “dogs”. But her wise reply that even the dogs can eat the scraps falling from the family dinner table elicited the admiration of Jesus and prompted his mercy to her.
In John 12:20-33 some “Greeks” who had come to Jerusalem “to worship” in the temple, and therefore belonged to group three (the “God-fearers”), wishing to speak with Jesus, approached Philip, seeking his help in securing an interview. When Jesus was told, his reply seems on the surface to be beside the point. But in fact it is quite relevant. He immediately spoke to those standing around of the necessity of his being “glorified” first and only after this “drawing all people (even Gentiles) to myself” (v. 23). By being “glorified” Jesus clearly meant dying for our sins, being raised and exalted to heaven (see vv. 24-25). In this way Jesus indicated a future extension of his ministry to the Gentile world after his death and resurrection.
It is that extension which Luke has already indicated in his story of Saul/Paul’s conversion in ch. 9, and now will approach in chs. 10-11 through the “bridge” of Peter’s encounter with the Roman centurion Cornelius.
Although the event narrated in chs. 10 and 11 actually occurred as described and was by no means made up by Luke in order to make a theological point, it is clear that he in fact chose to include it at this point in his book in order to show how the Church’s leadership became committed to a mission to the Gentiles, undeterred by Jewish scruples. For this reason the section does not end with the initial description of the events in ch. 10, but with Peter’s report about it in ch. 11 and the conclusion based upon it that the Risen Lord Jesus intended his servants to set aside their scruples (Peter’s vision of a non-kosher meal!) in order to vigorously pursue a mission to both Jews and Gentiles (see Peter’s statement to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:7-11).
As is the case throughout the Book of Acts, Luke portrays all significant initiatives and new directions in the Church’s activity not to enterprising and creative individuals, but to direct Divine intervention. And when it is God’s purpose to bring two individuals together who might otherwise never do so, God is shown dealing with both parties separately. Remember Saul and Ananias in ch. 9? So in Acts 10 God appears separately to both Simon Peter and to Cornelius.
1-8 We already know who Peter was, so Luke first introduces to his readers the new character, a Roman centurion named Cornelius.
Roman personal names normally had two or three components (e.g., Gaius Julius Caesar). We are given here only one component of Cornelius’ name. In all likelihood he was either a freedman (Latin libertinus, Greek ἀπελεύθερος) or—more likely— the son or grandson of one, i.e., of a man who owed his freedom to the Roman general P. Cornelius Sulla, who in 82 BC freed 10,000 slaves who thereupon took his name (P. Cornelius libertus Cornelii). Freedmen were to be found in almost all occupations, and many amassed considerable fortunes. The “wealth of freedmen” became a proverbial expression. Although freedmen were excluded from higher public offices, this restriction did not apply to their children. And their grandchildren enjoyed complete equality with other freeborn Romans. For more on the status of “freedmen” see O. Seyffert, Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (Cleveland OH: Meridian Books, 1963) 240-242, Lewis and Reinhold, Roman Civilization. Volume II: The Empire, 167-173, Der kleine Pauly s.v. libertini, and Ferguson, Backgrounds, 58f.How high a military rank was a centurion? The term centurio itself in Latin means a commander of 100 (centum) men. It was a responsible position, the highest of the non-commissioned officers, who had to be taken from among the Roman nobility. Cornelius as a freedman was certainly not nobility, but was a skilled, loyal and experienced soldier. Centurions appear several times in the New Testament (Matt 8:5, 8, 13; 27:54; Mark 15:39, 44-45; Luke 7:2, 6; 23:47; Acts 10:1,22; 21:32; 22:25-26; 23:17, 23; 24:23; 27:1, 6,11, 31, 43), almost always in a commendable light.
Roman soldiers, although not drawn from the upper, educated classes, were in many ways less “provincial” than the latter, when it came to awareness of and open-mindedness toward the customs of other cultures and nations. In their foreign duty assignments these men were in daily contact with other cultures and followed them with curiosity. Often Roman soldiers came to venerate the deities of the countries in which they served. The Egyptian goddess Isis was a favorite of troops on overseas assignments in the Mediterranean.
Cornelius is introduced to us as a devout (ευσεβης) “God-fearer” (the Jewish term for the third category discussed above). To the extent that modern Americans even use such a term as “devout” (which comes from the word "devoted"), we tend to think of it as relating to the emotions (i.e., warm-hearted, passionate). But the Greek term ευσεβης and its Aramaic and Hebrew equivalents (צַדִּיק "righteous" in Prov. 12:12; Isaiah 24:16; 26:7) — like the kindred term εὐλαβὴς = חָסִיד — are terms referring to behavior: “Observant” is probably a better translation. Luke makes this clear by describing Corneliuis' behavior: he prayed according to the Jewish regimen of daily prayers and he gave generously the alms required by Jewish law. The third branch of Jewish piety, fasting, is not mentioned, but probably also characterized Cornelius. You can see that all he lacked was circumcision in order to be a full Jew (i.e., a proselyte).
In our next posting we will discuss the actual narrative of Acts 10-11:18.
No comments:
Post a Comment