Return to Main Page:

New Testament Commentaries by Michael AH Ramsay

2. Paul and the Law (Romans 2:12-19)

3. Paul, the Gospel and Salvation (Romans 1:16-17)

4. The Nature and Function of the Law

5. Parabolic and Metaphoric Usage in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants 

6. Parabolic and Metaphoric Usage in the Parable of the Sower

7. The Ethics of Jesus as Reflected in the Lukan Parables

8. Acts 2: an Interpretation

9. Acts 10:1-16: an Interpretation

Paul and the Human Condition as reflected in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16 (view Scriptures)

Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Winter 2007)

 “Romans is neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece”[1] – N.T. Wright. 

Introduction

Paul’s letter to the Romans was written in the mid to late 50s[2] and is addressed to Gentiles.[3] In the mid to late 50s, Rome was by far the Mediterranean world’s dominant power and Nero was the Roman Emperor (54-68 AD, Proconsul since 51AD).

Pertaining to the theme of Romans and not wanting to devote an excessive amount of space to introductory issues, I have to acknowledge that “we must be careful not to impose on Romans a single theme when Paul may never have thought in those terms…a theme that fits 1:16-11:36 may not fit the whole.”[4] In contrast to this difficulty, “the easiest thing to determine about Romans is its basic shape. Its four sections emerge clearly: chaps. 1-4, 5-8, 9-11, and 12-16.”[5] Chapters 1-4 can be broken down into 1:18-3:20 and 3:21-4:25,[6] and 1:18-3:20 can further be divided into 1:18-32; 2:1-16, 17-29; 3:9-20, 21-26 and 3:27-4:25.[7] For the purposes of this paper, I will examine Paul’s understanding of the human condition as it is related in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16.

Romans 1: 18-32

The section begins with Paul acknowledging the human condition of those who “by their wickedness [asebeia] suppress the truth (1:18).” This is significant. Their condition is stated as receiving the wrath of God for good reason: Paul points out that the truth they are suppressing must be plain to them for God, himself, has shown it to them (1:19) through the evidence of His creation. Ever since the beginning of the world, God’s power and nature have been understood (v.20).

            Though this truth was revealed to them, they neither honoured God nor gave Him the thanks He deserves; rather ‘claiming to be wise they became fools’ in that they abandoned the glory of the creator so that they might worship the image of the created (cf. Psalm 106:20). It is because they, without any good excuse, disregarded the truth and followed this lie that “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity (v.24).” The human condition here is, by way of denying the obvious truth, one of rebellion against God.

            Much could be written on the lists included in vv.26-31. What is significant for our purposes here is that God gave the truth-deniers up to their “unnatural” (para physin) passions (v.26): they had intercourse with people of the same gender and “received in their own persons the due penalty for their error (v.27).”[8] Further, “since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind (v.28):” they were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, God-hatred, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, inventing evil, rebellion against parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, and ruthlessness (vv.29-31; cf. 2 Tim 3:2,3). This is the general human condition of the truth-deniers while acknowledging that “sinful man is capable of committing all of them [these sins], but not every individual is necessarily guilty of every one.”[9] These truth-deniers, Paul asserts, are aware that they deserve to die for participating in these things and that they not only partake of these actions but also encourage others to indulge in the very same acts. The result, then, of disregarding the truth about the divine nature and eternal power of God is to be given over to these unnatural desires and to act upon a debased mind; this is the human condition and for this they deserve to die.

Romans 2:1-16

            This next section is interesting. Paul claims in verse one that no one, whoever you are, has any excuse (cf. 1:18) to condemn others, for you, whoever you are, are doing the very same things. You, whoever you are, are committing the evil acts that come from worshiping the created over the creator and are worthy of the judgement of God.

            It is worth examining here the ‘whoever you are’ from verse one. Until this point in the letter Paul has been using the third person plural pronoun (‘they’ in English) to refer to people whose actions he is discussing. He here describes people using the second person singular, ‘you’. This is not to say that he is referring to the recipients of the letter, as that would necessitate a plural form of the word. Rather, “Paul utilizes here…a literary style called diatribe. Diatribe style, which is attested in several ancient authors as well as elsewhere in the NT (e.g., James), uses the literary device of an imaginary dialogue with a student or an opponent.”[10] So who is this ‘you’ that is being addressed? It is probably not a specific person but rather an imaginary one who personifies many arguments that Paul may have previously refuted on this topic. This ‘you’ may be representative of a condemning Jew to contrast with the wicked Gentile ‘they,’[11] in which case it would say here that the Jew will judged as well as the Gentile. By ‘you’ however, Paul may have also meant the Gentiles who deplore the aforementioned evil actions.[12] Either way, this is a significant change of language and it espouses judgement upon the judge and condemnation upon the self-righteous moralizer.[13] You, whoever you are, are not immune to this human condition of being guilty of rebellion against God.

            Verses 3-5, through a series of rhetorical questions, point to the hypocrisy of claiming one thing and yet doing another: “Do you imagine…that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (2:3-5).” Even in this judgement, grace can be seen. For while these actions by the truth-deniers lead to death, God’s kindness is meant to lead to repentance for God “will repay according to each one’s deeds (v.6).” The human condition of the truth-deniers is that they are more than creation worshipers (cf. v.25); they are self-seeking (cf. Gen 3:6) in their wrath-provoking disobedience of truth (cf. 1:18) and therefore every bit as guilty as they who were mentioned in Chapter One.

            Verse 9 mentions ‘the Jew’ explicitly for the first time in Romans. This is important for “contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[14] They will be judged just as the Gentiles will be judged. This is the human condition: “All who have sinned apart from the law will perish apart from the law (cf. 1:20-21), and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law (2:12, cf. 2:1).”

It is not those who hear the law – for they may be truth-deniers or rejecters – but it is those who obey the law that are justified (v.13). Verses 14-15 are an expression of a central part of Paul’s expressed concept of the human condition. Even the Gentiles who do not have the law are able to do what the law requires for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16). These verses contain obvious reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 where it is recorded that the law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites’ but it is also an acknowledgement of the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham has been fulfilled for all nations of the earth. They are now blessed as even the Gentiles ‘have the law written on their hearts.’

All of this then is the human condition according to Paul in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16. Those who deny the abundant evidence of God’s eternal power and divine nature (1:19-20) are rightly exposed to the wrath of God (1:18, 2:8), which results in being given over to their unnatural desires to act upon a debased mind. As a consequence of this sin, this rebellion, that they commit, they are condemned and deserve to die. Neither moralizing nor the Torah can save anyone. Christ, however, has ushered in the new covenant (cf. Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Hebrews 8, 9, 12:24); therefore, repentance (2:4), blessing (Gen 12:3), justification (2:13), and righteousness (2:13) await those ‘doers of the law’ which is now written on their hearts. In Christ we are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).

Return to Index

Paul’s Understanding of the Role of Law as Reflected in Romans 2:12-16, 17-24, and 25-29. (view Scriptures)

Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Winter 2007) 

I chose to examine Paul’s understanding of the Law as he explains it in Romans 2:12-16, 17-24, and 25-29. This paper is a natural continuation of the work I previously completed entitled Paul and the Human Condition as reflected in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16. As such I will forego much of the ‘introductory issues’ pertaining to Romans itself. This paper, as well as being a continuation of the previous one, does contain some valuable overlap. I submit also that the passages in Romans 2 that will be examined here contain some notable, albeit not infrequently overlooked information about Paul’s understanding of the Law.[1]  N.T. Wright, in his article The Law in Romans 2, claims that “Romans 2, for so long the Achilles heel of schemes on Paul and the Law, may make a vital contribution to some eventual solutions, both to the theological questions which surround all of Paul’s writings and, of course, to the exegesis of Romans itself.”[2]

            It is in verse 9 actually that ‘the Jew’ is mentioned for the first time. This is important for “contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[3] It is verses 12-16 though where Paul introduces ‘the Law’ in Romans making it clear that it is not those who hear the Law but rather those who obey the Law that are justified (v.13). Verse 12 records that everyone will be judged and, “All who have sinned apart from the Law will perish apart from the Law and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law (2:12, cf. 2:1).” The Law will be the meter for measurement for those under it.

Verses 14 and 15 are important for contained therein is the Gentile responsibility in relation to the Law: even the Gentiles who do not have the Law are able to do what the Law requires for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16). These verses contain an obvious reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 where it is recorded that the Law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites’ but even more than that, it is reference to the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham that he will be a blessing has been fulfilled for all nations of the earth.

Verses 17-24 speak of the Law and the Jews relationship to it. Paul addresses a Jewish claim that they can ‘know [God’s] will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the Law (v.18)” and that they are “a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth (19-20).” He refutes this, emphasising his point through a series of five rhetorical questions pertaining to various sins that illuminate the hypocrisy of the claim. The essence of these questions can be summed up with “How can one claim to be a teacher of a Law when one does not obey the Law oneself (cf. 2.1)?” N.T. Wright goes as far as to claim that “if the covenant was put in place to deal with evil in the world (this is the presupposition Paul shares with his imaginary opponent in 2:17-24), then the failure of the covenant people to be the light of the world means that the covenant itself seems to be under threat.”[4]

Verses 25-29 speak specifically about circumcision and Law. Two groups of people are being addressed but exactly to whom the passage is referring is not entirely clear. The identity of the first person referred to here is clearer than that of the second. The first is a Jew who does not keep the Law (cf. vv 25, 26, 27). It is the second person whose identification is somewhat ambiguous. Is the contrasting person a Christian (cf. 1 Cor. 6:3) or a non-believing Gentile?

N.T. Wright puts forth a lengthy argument in favour of the idea that the Gentile is indeed a Christian. He concludes, “that in 2.25-9 Paul is principally describing the contrast between the Jew who breaks the Law and the Gentile Christian who apparently ‘keeps’ or ‘fulfills’ the Law. Such a person has somehow been included in the ‘new covenant’ category, designated simply as ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision.’”[5]

Paul J. Achtemeier conversely claims that “the fact that the context is dominated by appearance, or claims, and reality make it more likely that he does in fact have the Gentiles, not Gentile Christians, in mind…he is arguing that such Gentiles are capable of doing some of the things the Law requires”[6] Since they who have not been given the Law are capable of obeying parts of it and the Jews who have been given the Law are not able to obey all of it, “what Paul is pointing to is simply the fact that the claim of the Jews to any exclusiveness on the basis of the content of their Law must reckon with the fact that many of the virtues commanded in the Law are also practiced by other people. Since that is the case, it is what one does, not what one has that is important.”[7]

Dunn, along the same lines as Wright, argues that the references to judgement here are probably temporal and eschatological (cf. 1 Cor. 6:3) and as such the Gentiles in question are most likely Christians. Though he disagrees with Achtemeier as to whom the passage is referring, it is interesting that he reaches a similar conclusion about the passage’s meaning, stating,  “the point here is that the Jew who truly approves of the business of the Law (v.15) should recognize the acceptability to God of those who meet the demands of the Law. Such…was surely in reality the equivalent in God’s eyes to the full member of the covenant people (cf. 2:13).”[8] The Gentile has obtained equivalent status to the Jew. They are on equal footing: on the day of judgement, the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16).

Pertaining to the spiritual circumcision, “there was plenty of background for Paul’s appeal for circumcision of the heart (e.g., Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25, 26).”[9] Paul points out that circumcision is only valuable if you obey the Law and he has already argued that the Jews are not obeying the Law and thus “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles (v.24; cf. Isaiah 52:5).” What of the uncircumcised Gentile who obeys the Law? Paul says that he “will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the Law (v. 27).” The Gentiles are grafted into the vine; therefore, “to continue to identify the point of the Law with Israel as a national entity (clearly distinguished from other nations by circumcision) was actually to prevent God’s purpose in the Law attaining fulfilment. This has been Paul’s critique consistently throughout the chapter.”[10]

The role of Law is to reveal how we are guilty of sin (cf. 2:1, 17-24; 3:19). One can neither rely on the Law (2:17) nor condemn others by it, as one will not stand justified before it oneself (2:2; cf. 3:19-20). It is the ‘doing’ rather than the receiving of the Law that reveals that one is justified (2:13-14,18, 25-26). Both Jew and Gentile, the latter not being recipients of the Law, are equally able to ‘do’ or ‘not do’ the Law (cf. 2:3, 14-15, 17-14, 25-26, 3:19-31). Further, if indeed it were possible for him not to transgress the Law (cf. 3:20), the Gentile would stand in judgement of the Jew who did receive it (contrast 2:1-3). At the conclusion of the second chapter of Romans, it is clear that the Jew and the Gentile stand on equal footing before the Law. The Law and “the works of Torah, that is, those practices which mark Israel out from among the nations, cannot be the means of demarcating the true covenant people; they merely point up the fact of sin (3:20, looking back to 2:17-24 and on to 5:20 and 7:7-25). Instead, the covenant faithfulness of the creator of the world is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Messiah, for the benefit of all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe.”[11]

The Good News of Romans: Paul and the Gospel and Salvation (Romans 1:16-17) (view Scriptures)

Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Winter 2007) 

It is my intention in this paper to build upon the framework that I laid in my previous two papers: Paul and the Human Condition as reflected in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16 and Paul’s Understanding of the Role of Law as Reflected in Romans 2:12-16, 17-24, and 25-29. Paul’s understanding of the gospel and salvation is very closely related to both his understanding of the Law and of the human condition.

Paul’s letter to the Romans was written in the mid-to-late 50s and is addressed to a Gentile dominated church.[1] In the mid-to-late 50s, Rome was by far the Mediterranean world’s dominant power and Nero was the Roman Emperor (54-68 AD, Proconsul since 51AD). Immediately prior to this time, in 49 AD, Nero’s predecessor, Claudius had banished the Jews from Rome. The remaining Christians then would be non-Jews. When Nero officially ascended the throne in 54, many of the Jewish Christians returned. Things had changed[2] and this was the historical context of Paul’s letter.

Paul’s letter to the Romans is clearly an important work. N.T. Wright claims that “Romans is neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece.”[3] Pertaining to the theme of Romans, I have to acknowledge that, as Douglas Moo warns,  “we must be careful not to impose on Romans a single theme when Paul may never have thought in those terms…a theme that fits 1:16-11:36 may not fit the whole.”[4]

I would argue, however, that if these verses do not convey the theme of the entire letter, they certainly do reflect Paul’s understanding of salvation. It is significant that immediately prior to the sections of Romans that I examined in my earlier papers (1:18-32; 2:1-16,12-16, 17-24, 25-29) -where Paul introduces his understanding of the Law and the human condition to his readers- he is recorded as stating, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God (dikaiosynē theou) is revealed through faith for faith (ek pisteos eis pistin); as it is written, ‘the one who is righteous (dikaios) will live by [or ‘out of’] faith (ek pisteōs)’ (1:16-17).” I would argue, then, that Paul’s understanding of the human condition and the Law, as expressed in Romans, should be interpreted in light of this gospel of salvation. Drawing on my previous work and citing other pertinent sections of Paul’s letter to the Romans, I will focus on the gospel and salvation according to Paul in his letter to the Romans, as reflected in Chapter 1:16-17.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel…

Verse 16 records Paul’s declaration that he is not ashamed of the gospel. It is likely that there is a connection here with Jesus’ claims that if one is ashamed of him, then the “Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; cf. also Pss 31:1-3; 71:1-2; 143:1).” The word ‘gospel’ is a rendering of the Greek word euangelion, which means ‘good news’ or ‘good message’ (cf. Isa 40:9, 52:7). “The gospel is not merely the initial proclamation of Christ which wins converts, but is the whole Christian message and claim in terms of the rest of the letter.”[5] For Paul, “the gospel was the sovereign message, from none other than God, concerning Jesus the Messiah, God’s unique Son…[It is] news that Jesus had become the spearhead of God’s ‘age to come;’ news that, within this new age, the principalities and powers…and sin and death themselves had been defeated and were now summoned to allegiance.”[6] Paul here is making a clear reference to his earlier statements in the prologue to his letter to the Romans. He states in the salutation, 1:1-7 (which is one very long sentence in the NRSV translation):

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

In this opening statement, Paul clearly links this gospel of God (v.1) with the good news of Jesus (v.3) who is descended from David (the anticipated human lineage of the Messiah or ‘Son of Man’) and declared to be the Son of God.[7] Paul declares that he was specifically set apart for this gospel (v.1) which was promised beforehand (v.2) and is now revealed. It is in this gospel that the power for salvation is declared as a result of the resurrection (1:4, 16; cf. 1Cor 15:1-5, 17-22).

Verse 16 also relates to Paul’s statements in the thanksgiving section of the prologue (vv. 8-15), where Paul argues that through mentioning this gospel of God’s Son, he is actually doing a service for God with his spirit (v. 9) and, as such, he is indeed eager to render this service by proclaiming this gospel (v. 15; cf. 15:16).

In Romans 2:14-16, Paul refers to this gospel of which he is not ashamed as being written on people’s hearts in a probable reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34.[8] There it is recorded that the Law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites.’ Paul alludes to the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham that he will be a blessing, which is now fulfilled, for all nations of the earth (cf. 2:15; 4:13, 16-17; 9:7-8; 10:12-13; Gal 3:6-9). This gospel proclaims the good news that on the day of judgement, the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:15). There are a number of other direct references to this euangelion throughout the letter to the Romans (cf. 11:28). Most of them specifically relate to Paul’s duty and ambition to proclaim this gospel (15:16,19,20) “that was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedient faith (16:15).” This indeed is good news of which he is not ashamed.

…it is the power of God for Salvation…

The term translated ‘salvation’ has a range of meaning from ‘bodily health, preservation, and safety (cf. e.g., Mark 5:23,28,34; 6:56; 10:52; Acts 27:34), to – as is frequently the case in the Psalms and Isaiah - deliverance from peril and restoration to wholeness. God’s righteousness here is linked with the provided salvation. (cf. e.g., Pss 35:27-28; 72:1-4; 85:9-13; 96:13; 98:2-3, 9; Isa 9:7; 11:1-2; 45:8, 22-25; 51:5-6; 53:10b-11; 61:1-2, 11; Jer 23:5-6; Mal 4:2). “In other Psalm texts, it is surely striking that the psalmist prays for the Lord to deliver him in his righteousness (Ps 31:1; 143:1, 11; 71:1-2, 15; cf. 79:9). In these instances, deliverance from the enemy is the godly person’s salvation.”[9] In Paul’s understanding this salvation is “primarily eschatological, a hope for the future, deliverance from final destruction, the end product for God’s good purpose for humanity (see particularly 5:9-10; 13:11; 1 Cor 13:15; 5:5; Phil 2:12; 1 Thess 5:8-9).”[10]

Good news is the power (dynamis) of God for this salvation (see also 11:23). It is contrasted with the Law and its powerlessness to save (8:3) and the weakness of our state as sinners when Christ died for us (5:6-8). God’s power (cf. 9:19-22) has been understood and seen through the things He has made from the time of creation itself (1:19-20). It is by power that God has kept His promises to Abraham (4:13-22; Gen 12:3), defeated Pharaoh (9:17; Exod 5-14), and it is through the power of His Spirit that He enabled Paul to proclaim the gospel (15:19-20) and us to abound in hope (15:13).

It is this same power that Christ has and that was used to raise Christ from the dead (1:4). This is significant, for it is the act of the resurrection that showed Paul that Jesus is indeed the Messiah and the Son of God. False Messiahs were not unheard of at this time in history and a strong indication of the falsity of their claim would be their death – especially on a tree (cf. Gal 3:13) at the hands of Israel’s occupier.

The phrase ‘in power’ in Verse 4 then is important for, as Dunn argues, it indicates “Christ’s divine son-ship (v.3) had been ‘upgraded’ or ‘enhanced’ by the resurrection, so that he shared more fully in the power of God[11]…able to act on and through people in the way Paul implies elsewhere (e.g., 8:10; 1 Cor 15:45; Gal 2:20; Col 2:6-7)…The full extent of God’s purpose could only be realized through Jesus as Messiah (of Israel) risen from the dead to become the Son of God in power (for all).”[12] 

Dynamis “seems to refer to both the power of God that raised Jesus from the dead (cf. 1 Cor 6:14; 15:24, 43; 2 Cor 13:4; Eph 1:19-10; Phil 3:10) and thereby declared his identity as Messiah, and to the powerful nature of his son-ship, through which he confronts all the powers of the world, up to and including death itself, with the news of a different and more effective type of power altogether. Paul, of course sees this same power at work now, by the Spirit, through the proclamation of the gospel and in the lives of those who are ‘in the Messiah’ (see, e.g., 1:16; 11:23; 15:13; 1 Cor 1:24; 2:4-5).”[13] This salvation then is by the power of God’s gospel and this is indeed good news.

…to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek…

Everyone -whether Jew or Gentile- stands equally before God. “Contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[14] The Jews will be judged just as the Gentiles will be judged: “All who have sinned apart from the law will perish apart from the law (cf. 1:20-21), and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law (2:12, cf. 2:1),” for even the Gentiles who do not have the law are able to do what the law requires for it is written on their hearts (1:14) but, as Paul argues elsewhere in Romans, neither is truly able to do the Law (Torah) perfectly (cf. 2:3; 14-15, 17-26, 3:29-31).

The equality of the Gentile to the Jew before God, as expressed by Paul in Romans in no way negates the primacy of the Jews (cf. 11:7, 11). It was only “through their stumbling [that] salvation has come to the Gentiles…Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! (11:12-13).” In chapters nine through eleven of Romans, Paul goes into great detail about Israel’s election (9:4-18), rejection (10:1-4, 21; 11:15, 28), and future acceptance of the gospel of salvation (11:1-11, 23-36). Now “even those of Israel if they do not persist in unbelief [or rejection of the gospel], will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again (11:23).” Salvation then comes ‘to everyone who has faith, first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.’

…For in it the righteousness of God…

Paul is arguing in Romans that through the gospel, the righteousness of God (dikaiosynē theou) is revealed (cf. 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26 10:3). Righteousness is not from the Law (3:21) and we are not inherently righteous (10:3; cf. Isa 46:12; Deut 9:6). This righteousness is sometimes called a ‘faith righteousness’ separate from works[15] (1:17; 3:21, 22; 10:4, 6). It relates to the reason why the gospel contains the power that it does. It is not referring to the Divine faithfulness to ethnic Israel, it instead refers to the fact that, in Jesus the Messiah, the covenant purpose of God for Israel was finally fulfilled; Israel was elected to bear the creator’s saving purposes for the whole world.[16] The concept is not merely individualistic; it has a corporate and even a global side.

Any righteousness that we do display comes directly from God (3:22, 24; 10:3; cf. 5:19; Psalm 72:11; Isa 46:13; Isa 61:10; Joel 2:23) for it is God who is righteous[17] (3:5; cf. Psalm 35:24; 48:10; 50:6; 51:14; 65:5; 71:19; Isa 5:16). And as such, we cannot obtain righteousness by either merit or the Law (3:21) so we should submit ourselves to God in order to be instruments of His righteousness (6:13). We do not need to be slaves to sin (6:16-18) which leads to death. But rather we are free to present our “members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification (6:19).” We have been freed from sin and enslaved to God. The gift that we receive is eternal life. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (6:22-23).”

…is revealed through faith for faith…

The salvific righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel itself. It is revealed ‘through faith for faith’, or ‘out of faith into faith’ (ek pisteos eis pistin). These words in 1:17 have been understood to mean the growth in faith ‘from the faithfulness of God to the faithfulness of believers,’[18] ‘out of the faith of Jesus and into the faith of believers’[19] or even ‘from the faithfulness of God to the faith of believers.’[20] Just as righteousness is from God so is faith or faithfulness (4:20, 12:3; Eph 2:8; James 2:5; 2 Pet 1:1; cf. Heb 12:2). It is God’s faithfulness that makes possible our faith or faithfulness. Paul states, as recorded in 3:3-4, ‘‘What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true…’’ This is important to bear in mind as one reads further into 3: 21-26:

But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ or all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.

It is significant that ‘faith in Jesus’ in this passage can also be interpreted as the faithfulness of Jesus. This, I submit, makes sense from the perspective of 1:17 and 3:3-4. Prior to the above passage (3:21-26), Paul had just finished making his case that our faithlessness can in no way nullify the faithfulness of God (3:4-5); therefore it follows that, as it is the righteousness of God rather than the righteousness of the works of humankind; so, also it is the faith or faithfulness of Christ (cf. Heb 3:6, 12:2) – as Paul himself makes clear earlier in the chapter (3:4-5) – rather than that of ourselves that provides salvation. Redemption is in Jesus (v.24) whom God offered as a sacrifice of atonement (v.25). It is by his grace as a gift (v.24), rather than anything to be obtained by our works of faith; it is from the faithfulness of God to the faith and subsequent faithfulness of believers: the power of the salvific righteousness of God is experienced in the gospel, ‘through faith for faith.’

…as it is written, ‘the one who is righteous will live by faith’

            It is then the one who is righteous who will live by faith. And this faith is both, as Dunn declares, “the initial act of receiving the gospel and the continuing process toward salvation.”[21] Faith is a result of righteousness (3:22; 4:5, 9,11,13; 9:30; 10:6) and righteousness is from God (3:22, 24; 10:3, 17; cf. 5:19; Psalm 72:11; Isa 46:13; Isa 61:10; Joel 2:23) for it is God who is righteous (3:5; cf. Psalm 35:24; 48:10; 50:6; 51:14; 65:5; 71:19; Isa 5:16) and it is His righteousness that enables us to be righteous, just as it is Christ’s faithfulness that enables us to live by faith.

Conclusion

Read in the context of the entire letter of Romans, Paul’s concept of the gospel and salvation is reflected succinctly in Romans 1:16-17. Paul is not ashamed of the good message of Jesus and God. This good news has the power of God for the salvation of everyone with faith. Salvation was provided through - and first to - the Jew. It was extended to the Gentile: all may be saved.  God’s righteousness – not ours – is revealed in this good news through faith for faith. And as a result of the gospel power of the resurrection, God’s righteousness, and faithfulness, we can experience righteousness, come to and continue in faith. God, through His righteousness and faithfulness, has already provided for the salvation of everyone and this is indeed good news.

The Apostle Paul's Understanding of the Nature and Function of the Law  

Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (April 2007)

Paul’s understanding of the nature and function of the Law are important to comprehend in order to fully appreciate Pauline theology. Paul believed that as the promise was given to the Jews - though not to them exclusively and that it was even many years prior to the existence of either Jacob or the Jewish people (Galatians 3:17; Romans 4:13; cf. Genesis 12:3; Acts 2:23-25) - so too the Law applied equally to both Jew and Gentile in that God would not treat the sins of the Jews significantly different from those of the Gentiles (Romans 2:14-16; 3:27-31): this was indeed contrary to popular Jewish understanding.[1] The Law in no way superseded the covenant promise (Galatians 3:17).

It is in verses 2:12-16 where Paul introduces ‘the Law’ in his letter to the Romans, making it clear that it is not those who hear the Law but rather those who obey the Law who are justified (v.13). Verse 12 records that everyone will be judged and, “All who have sinned apart from the Law will perish apart from the Law and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law (2:12, cf. 2:1).” The Law will be the meter for measurement for those under it.

In Romans 2:14-15, the Gentile responsibility in relation to the Law is mentioned: even they, who do not have the Law, are able to do what the Law requires as much as anyone else is for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16; cf. 3:27-31).

The problem is though that no one will be declared righteous under the Law (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16, 21; 3:11, cf. 3:2). No one can perfectly obey to the Law (cf. Romans 2:3, 14-15, 17-26; 3:29-31; 9:20). Those then that attempt to obtain righteousness through an adherence to the Law will fail and thus be under a curse (Galatians 3:10; cf. Deuteronomy 27:26). However, as many scholars have pointed out, the Law demands faithfulness, not sinless perfection[2] and Paul's position is that his gospel upholds and is supported by the Law[3] (Romans 3.31; cf. Matthew 5:17).

“Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the Law; but if you break the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the Law, will not their uncircumcision be regard as circumcision? (Romans 2:25-26).” In Romans 2:25-29, two groups of people are being addressed. This is relevant to an understanding of the nature and function of the Law: The first group is comprised of Jews who do not keep the Law (cf. vv 25, 26, 27). The other is comprised of either Christian Gentiles (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3) or non-believing Gentiles. 

N.T. Wright argues, “that in 2.25-9 Paul is principally describing the contrast between the Jew who breaks the Law and the Gentile Christian who apparently ‘keeps’ or ‘fulfills’ the Law. Such a person has somehow been included in the ‘new covenant’ category, designated simply as ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision.’”[4]

Paul J. Achtemeier conversely claims that “the fact that the context is dominated by appearance, or claims, and reality make it more likely that he does in fact have the Gentiles, not Gentile Christians, in mind…he is arguing that such Gentiles are capable of doing some of the things the Law requires”[5] Since they who have not been given the Law are capable of obeying parts of it and the Jews who have been given the Law are not able to obey all of it, Paul is pointing to the fact a Jewish claim to any exclusivity on the basis of the content of their Law must contend with the fact that many of the virtues commanded in the Law are practiced by other people as well. As that is the case, it is what one does, rather than what one has in relation to the Law that is important.[6]

James Dunn, along the same lines as Wright, argues that the references to judgement in the context of Romans 2 are probably temporal and eschatological (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3) and as such the Gentiles in question are most likely Christians. Though he disagrees with Achtemeier as to whom the passage is referring, it is interesting that he reaches a similar conclusion about the passage’s meaning, stating,  “the point here is that the Jew who truly approves of the business of the Law (Romans 2:15) should recognize the acceptability to God of those who meet the demands of the Law. Such…was surely in reality the equivalent in God’s eyes to the full member of the covenant people (cf. Romans 2:13).”[7] The Gentile has obtained equivalent status to the Jew. They are on equal footing: on the day of judgement, the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (Romans 2:14-16).

In Romans 2:29, Paul refers to a spiritual circumcision of the heart (cf., Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25, 26). Physical circumcision is only valuable if you obey the Law. Paul argues that God “will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the Law (Romans 2:27; cf. Galatians 3:10).” The apostle Paul, later in his letter to the Romans, cites Moses: “Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the Law, that ‘the person who does these things will live by them’ (Romans 10:5).” The Gentiles are now grafted into the vine; therefore, as James Dunn argues, “to continue to identify the point of the Law with Israel as a national entity (clearly distinguished from other nations by circumcision) was actually to prevent God’s purpose in the Law attaining fulfilment.”[8]

In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he states clearly that, pertaining to relying on the Law and a physical circumcision that “if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you…every man who lets himself be circumcised…is obliged to obey the entire Law. You who want to be justified by the Law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:2-5).” No one is justified by the Law (Galatians 3:11).

Romans 2:17-24 further addresses the Law and the Jews relationship to it. Paul responds to a Jewish claim that they can know God’s will and determine what is best because they are instructed in the Law (Romans 2:18) and that they are “a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth (Romans 2:19-20).” Paul makes the point that the Jews are not better or more knowledgeable than others. He does this through a series of five rhetorical questions pertaining to various sins that illuminate the hypocrisy of the claim. The essence of these questions can be summed up with “How can one claim to be a teacher of a Law when one does not obey the Law oneself (cf. Romans 2.1)?” N.T. Wright goes as far as to claim that “if the covenant was put in place to deal with evil in the world (this is the presupposition Paul shares with his imaginary opponent in Romans 2:17-24), then the failure of the covenant people to be the light of the world means that the covenant itself seems to be under threat.”[9]

Paul addresses this idea in his letter to the Galatians. As recorded in chapter three, he asks if the Law is indeed opposed to the promises of God (Galatians 3:21)? He responds, “Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the Law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe (Galatians 3:21-22).”

Paul is recorded as asking and answering, “Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator (Galatians 3:19).” Now, however, “There is no longer Jew nor Greek, there is no longer slave nor free, there is no longer male nor female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:28-29).”

The Law reveals that we are guilty of sin (Romans 2:1, 17-24; 3:19). One can neither rely on the Law (Romans 2:17) nor condemn others by it, as one will not stand justified before it oneself (Romans 2:2; 3:19-20). Both the Jew and the Gentile stand on equal footing before the Law. The Law and “the works of Torah, that is, those practices which mark Israel out from among the nations, cannot be the means of demarcating the true covenant people; they merely point up the fact of sin (3:20, looking back to 2:17-24 and on to 5:20 and 7:7-25). Instead, the covenant faithfulness of the creator of the world is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Messiah, for the benefit of all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe.”[10]

Return to Index

Jesus use of Parabolic and Metaphorical Methods to Affect the Listeners 

of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. (view Scriptures)

Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Fall 2006)

            In this paper I will examine how Jesus uses parabolic and metaphorical methods in the parable of the wicked tenants to affect his listeners. I will look primarily at the account in Matthew and expand on that by referencing Luke and Mark.

Matthew’s unique rhetorical setting for the parable

What is immediately evident in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ parable of the wicked tenants - that distinguishes it from the other accounts - is that this parable is the second in a series of three; all of these, I submit, are attempting to answer the same question posed by the Pharisees, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority? (Matthew 21:23; cf. Luke 1:2, Mark 11:28)” Mark and Luke do not record Jesus as speaking the other parables here. Indeed, Luke includes the parable of the Marriage feast – the third of Matthew’s three (Matt. 22:1-14) - in an entirely separate setting (Luke 14:16-24); it is not mentioned at all in the account of Mark and neither Mark nor Luke mention the parable of the two sons (Matt 21:28-32). 

Commonalities in the contextual setting of the parable

There are several commonalities in the parable’s contextual setting. It is recorded after the triumphal entry when the people proclaim ‘Hosanna’ or ‘blessed be the king’ and that Jesus is the ‘Son of David’ (Matthew 21:10-11, Mark 11:9-10, Luke 19:38); the clearing of the temple (Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-46); and Mathew and Mark’s account of the fig tree (Matthew 21:18-26; cf. Mark 11:12-14, 20-22).

The accounts have other elements in common: the synoptics each include questioning about paying tribute to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26), concerning the resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-40), comments on the great commandment (Matthew 22:34-40, Mark12:28-34, Luke 10:25-28), and David’s son (Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37, Luke 20:41-44) followed by woes against the Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-36, Mark 12:37-40, Luke 20:45-47).

                The impetus for and purpose of this parable.

This parable appears in each account to be an elaboration upon Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees’ question about where he derives his authority (Matt 21:23-27, Mark 11:27-33, Luke 20:1-8). His original response is recorded in the form of a question: “Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” (Matt 21:25, Mark 11:30, cf. Luke 20:1). It is a masterful way for him to avoid the verbal trap laid by the Pharisees and in the process ambush them. When the Pharisees realise that a trap has been laid for them in return, they attempt to sidestep it by not responding to the question at all. This elicits from Jesus, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things (Matt. 21:27, Mark 12:27, Luke 20:8).” He nonetheless offers a parable –or parables as the case may be- in response.

It is also worth noting here that while the disciples are “…given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but to others [Jesus speaks] in parables, so that ‘looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand.’ (Luke 8:10).”And as such Jesus does not always offer an interpretation. Here, preceding the parable of the wicked tenants, at the conclusion of the parable of the two sons, he does: “…Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you [religious leaders]. For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him (Matt. 21:31-32).” The purpose of this series of parables then is “the depiction of the unfaithfulness of the Jewish leaders. It is for this reason Jesus asks the Jewish leaders for their opinion concerning which of these two sons was the faithful one.”[1] The religious leaders’ response in the affirmative to Jesus question is then, “through typically parabolic procedure, a self-indictment.”[2]

                The parable’s place in the symmetry of Matthew’s rhetorical form:

It is significant that this parable fits nicely in the symmetry that is readily apparent in this portion of Matthew’s text (21:23-22:46). The poetic form is evident in the way in which the parable is placed in the gospel. Eugene Boring[3] displays it as such:

Introduction: The issue posed:                         

Jesus’ authority challenged                                             21:23

A Jesus’ question                                                   21:24-27

B Three parables

             1. The Two Sons                                       21:28-32

             2. The Lord’s Vineyard                                21:33-45

             3. The Great Supper                   22:1-14

B’ Three controversy stories

             1. Taxes to the Emperor                 22:15-22

             2. Resurrection                                         22:23-33

             3. The Great Commandment                22:34-40

A’ Jesus’ question

After Jesus’ question, “the three parables that follow are all directly addressed to the chief priests and elders as a continuation of Jesus’ response to their challenge (cf. 21:28, 33; 22:1: cf. Luke 14:15; 20:9).” This parable then is not only the second of three offered in response to the questioning of Jesus’ authority, it is also a part of a greater symmetrical rhetorical unit within the text. Further, “by adding two additional parables [he incorporates] the woes into the full-blown speech (23:1-25:46).”[4]  This parable is not meant to stand in isolation.

            There is a further element of the rhetorical structure of Matthew’s account that supports this claim: the formula of this parable of the wicked tenants is the same as the parable of the two sons that immediately precedes it:

21:28a                       Jesus’ introductory word                                                               21:33a

21:28b-30                 The parable                                                                                       21:33b-39

21:31a                       Jesus’ question                                                                                21:40

21:31b                       Their self-incriminating response                                                 21:41

31:21c                       Jesus’ concluding pronouncement of judgement                     21:42-43

“The two parables are also joined by their common elements of vineyard and son, as well as by the theme of doing God’s will.”[5] Jesus, Matthew records, masterfully weaves his response here into a larger literary discourse.

                Allegory or Parable? Do the characters stand for whom they appear to represent?

            There is some debate about whether this story of the wicked tenants –particularly the Markan account- is an allegory rather than a parable and to whom each of the characters refers: “obvious metaphors have troubled many scholars, who detect late "allegorising," which, they judge, could not have been part of the original parable but belongs only to the church's interpretation of it.”[6] While the landlord may represent God; the tenants, the religious leaders; the vineyard, Israel; the servants, the prophets; and the son, the Son of God; “Mark 12:2-5 has three servants sent individually and then many others. It is pointless to try to identify them as Moses, Joshua, David, and so forth. Matthew simplifies the story by having the master send two batches of servants.”[7] Thus this is not a rigid allegory but in recognizing this, many scholars maintain “that the "son" motif in the parable itself depends on the logic of the story and therefore must not be judged inauthentic…even the most skeptical approach to the Gospels acknowledges that Jesus enjoyed a sense of special sonship to the Father. It is almost inconceivable therefore that Jesus could use this "son" language in defending his mission and not be thinking of himself. It is far more natural to read the "son" language of the parable as yet another veiled messianic self-reference, especially in light of the use of "Son of God" as a messianic title.” [8] Further, “for six months Jesus has been telling his disciples that the rulers at Jerusalem would kill him (Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:18). Now he tells the rulers themselves, albeit in a parable form.” [9]

The interpretation of the parable

What then is the meaning of the parable of the wicked tenants? In all three accounts Jesus explains the meaning of this parable with reference to the cornerstone or capstone: “Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the scriptures: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is amazing in our eyes'? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people [ethnos] that produce the fruits of the kingdom. The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls (Matthew 21:42-44; cf. Mark 10-12, Luke 20:17-18).” 

Some have argued that this passage refers to Israel itself being replaced, however, the evidence rather “indicates that the parable concerns the leadership of Israel. Matthew contends that the tenant farmers, not the vineyard, must be replaced. In this light it seems unwise to take ethnos in 21:43…as a reference to the Gentile Church…it should be understood in its most basic sense as ‘a group of people,’ in this case the leaders of the Jewish Christian community.”[10]

Jesus then, in all three of these parables, is telling the religious leaders that “the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him (Matt. 21:31-32).” And this theme was not lost on the religious leaders for “…when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. They wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet Matt 21:45-46).”

                Conclusion:

 Sadly, “the pericope ends with magnificent yet tragic irony (v. 46). The religious leaders are told they will reject Jesus and be crushed. But instead of taking the warning, they hunt for ways to arrest him…and so trigger the very situation they have been warned about—a dramatic example of God's poetic justice. God in the Scriptures foretells this very event; and these men, prompted by hatred, rush to bring it to pass.” [11]

Return to Index

Jesus use of Parabolic and Metaphorical Methods to Affect the Listeners 

of the Parable of the Sower. (view Scriptures)

Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Fall 2006)

Scope and Rationale

            In this paper, I will examine how Jesus uses parabolic and metaphorical methods in the parable of the sower to affect his listeners. I will look at the accounts in Matthew, Luke, and Mark. In the case of this particular parable, I submit that the explanation of the parable and the explanation of why Jesus speaks in parables in general are part of that same rhetorical piece. As will be shown, the language of hearing and listening unite the explanation, the rationale and the parabolic discourse as one whole; so, I will examine here Jesus’ use of metaphorical and parabolic language in that whole.

            Background and Introduction.

One immediately observable fact is that is that there are three separate accounts of the parable of the sower along with relevant explanations. As Mark is probably the oldest of the extant sources, Matthew and Luke may have used it as a source. That being said, each of the books needs to be read independently for each one has its own message. “The Gospel of Matthew has traditionally and popularly been known as the Jewish Gospel”[1]; Mark spends almost one half of his gospel relating an account of the death and resurrection of Jesus; Luke’s gospel is interested in the oppressed and the poor and a theme is that "Salvation embraces the totality of embodied life, including its social, economic, and political concerns;"[2] they each include the parable of the sower. I will attempt to see the three synoptic accounts of this parable together.

             Luke’s textual context

In Luke, the parable of the sower is included in Chapter 8. This is near the end of his ministry in Galilee but fairly near the beginning of Luke. Preceding this account in Luke’s letter are a prologue (1:1-4), infancy narrative (1:5-2:52), and account of the preparation for Jesus’ ministry (3:1-4:13). It is immediately following the accounts of messengers arriving from John the Baptist and the woman anointing him with ointment. Also, as previously mentioned, the parable of the lamp under the jar follows immediately after this parable is explained; I wonder if indeed the further parable is not a part of Jesus’ explanation of the parable of the sower, as Luke “provides no textual indicators for a topical shift in the material of 8:4-21;”[3] it is one pericope.

Mark’s textual context

                      The parable of the sower is included in the fourth chapter of Mark. Prior to this, recorded in Mark are the beginnings of Jesus’ ministry (1:1-45) and controversy in Capernaum (2:1-3:35). Immediately preceding the story are the accounts of Jesus being accused of demonic possession and then being asked who is his true family. Following the parable of the sower, proverbs and parables are included (4:21-34) as well as a number of miracles performed around the Sea of Galilee (4:35-41).

             Matthew’s textual context

In Matthew, the parable of the sower is included in Chapter 13. This is near the beginning of the second (12:22-28:20) of two sections of the book. It is part of a larger sub-section (13:1-52) on parables and follows a sub-section addressing conflict and gathering community; it is preceding a section about forming the new community amidst conflict (13:53-17:27).[4]  “Matthew links the parabolic discourse in Chapter 13 to the preceding controversies (either 12:38-50 or 12:22-37) and ends it with a formulaic conclusion (13:53), which implies that all these parables were given on this occasion.”[5]

Jesus’ rhetoric and explanation of the purpose of parables: Mark 4:10-12, Matthew 13:10-17, Luke 8:10

Jesus is recorded as using parables many times in the scriptures. More than one third of his recorded teachings are parabolic in nature. These “sayings perform the classic function of Hellenistic histories of interpreting the meaning of the narrative”[6] as a whole, particularly in Luke. In all three accounts of this parable, Jesus tells us directly his purpose for speaking in parables before explaining the parable to his disciples. It is interesting that Luke records Jesus as saying in verse 10, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but to others I speak in parables, so that ‘looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand.’” The reference to the "secrets" (mysteria, v. 10) that they have been told, “occurs in this context in all three Synoptics. Mark 4:11 uses the singular form mysterion; and Matthew (13:11), like Luke, includes the word "knowledge" (gnonai, lit., "to know"). Only in this situation does mysterion occur in the teachings of Jesus.”[7] This then is significant.

Also significant in this sub-section is the fact that others are not meant to understand -as is stated in Mark’s account of Jesus discourse - “so they may not turn again and be forgiven (4:12).” There is a certain irony to this in the fact that the disciples themselves in Mark’s gospel often seem to be the one’s who don’t understand.

Of further significance still is the rhetorical or poetic form of the explanations themselves; K.E. Bailey points out that Jesus uses a ‘well-ordered chiasm whose inversion echoes OT form’ to effect his listeners, as shown here:

Therefore I speak to them in parables,

   1 because seeing they see not and hearing they hear not, nor understand.

     2 And it is fulfilled to them the prophecy of Isaiah which says,

       3 "Hearing you shall hear and shall not understand,

         4 and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive.

          5 For this peoples heart is become dull

            6 and the ears are dull of hearing

             7 and their eyes they have closed,

            7' lest they should perceive with the eyes

          6' and hear with the ear

       5' and understand with the heart, and should turn again and I should heal them."

     4' But blessed, are your eyes, for they see,

   3' and your ears, for they hear.

2' For truly I say unto you that many prophets and righteous men

              1' desired to see what you see, and did not see, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear.[8]

                The Parable of the Sower: repetition of ‘fell’

Jesus uses the rhetorical device of repetition in his address to the crowds: some fell on the path…, some fell on the rock…, some fell among thorns…, some fell into good soil. "The cadence characterizing the sowing phase of Jesus' story ("some fell, some fell, some fell...") draws the attention to the prepositions used in each case some fell beside, some fell onto, some fell in the midst of, some fell into."[9] This also draws a listeners’ attention to the fact that even though each surface received it differently, everyone received seed: some fell on each of them.

                The Parable of the Sower: progression of thought.

            The device of progression is evident in the Lukan account of the parable. Each successive time some seed falls, it falls on better ground. First, it does not grow up at all (Luke 8:5), then it grows only to whither (v.6), next it grows well but is choked by weeds (v.7) and finally it grows to produce a crop of a hundredfold increase (v.8). This progression is also evident in the accounts of Matthew and Mark with an added element.

It is interesting that a further progression of Jesus’ is recorded in Matthew and Mark that is not in Luke’s account. Whereas Luke merely mentions a hundred fold increase, in Mark 4:8 it is recorded that the increase on the good soil was “thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.” Matthew (13:8) records the progression in the reverse order – a hundred, sixty, thirty. This adds to the poetic language of the parable and emphasizes the possible use of hyperbole that is in all three accounts: though an increase of a hundred fold is possible, it is not necessarily likely. The “thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold”[10] is repeated at the conclusion of Jesus’ explanation (Mark 4:20; cf. Matthew 13:23) as well which serves to unite the explanation with the parabolic discourse.

             The Parable of the Sower: listening ears and hearing.

At the conclusion of the parable Jesus utters, “Let anyone with ears to hear listen!” (Luke 8:8; Mark 4:9, Matthew 13:9).  In the Markan account and that recorded in Matthew, he is further recorded as prefacing the parable with the word “listen”: “Listen! A sower went out to sow” (Mark 4:3, Matthew 13:3). Thus the parable is framed by the word “listen.”

The account in Matthew further highlights Jesus’ use of ears, hearing, and listening to unite the parable with the explanation of why he speaks in parables, a reference to Isaiah, and the explanation of this parable. Jesus, Matthew tells us, speaks in parables so that people “…hearing do not listen, nor do they understand” (v.13). Those words are repeated in quoting Isaiah in verse 14. In verse 15, he speaks of their ears being “hard of hearing” so that they might not understand and turn. He contrasts that with the fact that the disciples are blessed (v.16) because they indeed hear and that “many prophets and righteous people longed …to hear what you hear, but did not hear it (17).” “Hear then the parable of the sower” (v.18), Jesus says as he is about to explain the parable to his disciples. This is similar to his command “Listen!” when Jesus was about to utter the parable. The language of hearing is then a unifying rhetorical element that Jesus uses in the parable of the sower and though it is particularly noticeable in Matthew’s account, it is not absent from Mark’s or Luke’s: “That general 'hearing' is the principal theme of this narrative section is evident from the melody that weaves its way through the sometimes disparate material.”[11]

              Allegory, simile, or analogy.

There is much more that can be said about Jesus’ use of rhetoric and metaphor to affect the listener in the parable of the sower. One point is that the parable is not a strict allegory as “Jesus told not allegories but parables—simple stories with a single point.”[12] “What distinguishes parable from allegory is not that only the former has one central point but that the former alone ties all its elements to one another within the parable's framework. These interconnections are determined not so much by a one-to-one link with the historical or theological situation to which the parable refers but by the demands of the story—viz., the parable itself.”[13] Parables are meant to be directly apprehended and in many cases, though not necessarily this one, without explanation. The parable of the sower is indeed a simile, an extended metaphor analogous to the Kingdom of God. It is meant to leave us with a picture, an image of the Kingdom of God.

Conclusion: Irony of the parable’s understandability.

That being said, I would be remiss if I did not conclude with the obvious: this is a parable that should mean something to its original audience. Israel was indeed a story-telling culture and, at the time Jesus spoke this parable, an agrarian society. The possibility that the seed may fall on each of the kinds of ground should ring true to them: the good ground, the thorny ground, the places where the soil was shallow over limestone rock, the path – in first century Palestine, instead of a fence between each man’s field, there would be a narrow well-beaten path, like the one mentioned in the parable; these were often as hard as pavement.[14] People would have been aware of this. “Jesus’ parables draw upon the familiar world but the familiar is used in a new way.”[15] Those listening then should have been able to listen, hear, and understand this parable. However, they could not necessarily. This is an irony that is inherent to the parable; we can only hope that the truth of this parable will not be lost on us today.

The Ethics of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel as reflected in parables spoken en route to Jerusalem (view Scriptures)

  Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Fall 2006)

              Introduction

            The ethics of Jesus is a difficult topic to address. A couple of years ago I had contemplated looking into this subject matter pertaining to Canadian politics. I had hoped to entitle my paper “WWJV: hoW Would Jesus Vote.” I abandoned this idea for two reasons. 1) The topic of Jesus’ ethics seems much too vast to reduce to a WWJV formula, and 2) WWJV is probably not a legitimate question as Jesus is more concerned (and directly teaches about) a heavenly kingdom rather than an earthly democracy. His ethics, I submit, relate to the fact that the Kingdom of God has arrived and as such we should act appropriately.

            The authors of each of the gospels present a slightly different view of Jesus and have their own message. As such each of the books needs to be read independently. The Gospel of John “is above all concerned with the way the tradition is being lived in his community.”[1] “The Gospel of Matthew has traditionally and popularly been known as the Jewish Gospel;”[2] Mark spends almost one half of his gospel relating an account of the death and resurrection of Jesus; Luke’s gospel is interested in the oppressed and the poor and a theme is that “Salvation embraces the totality of embodied life, including its social, economic, and political concerns;”[3] for the purposes of this paper, I will concentrate on Luke’s portrayal of the ethics of Jesus.

Luke relays much of Jesus’ teaching through his parables. In the following pages I will examine Jesus’ ethics as they are reflected in the parables that he taught on the road to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-19:57). I chose to concentrate on the parables in this section of Luke’s gospel because, even though “much can be gained…if one is moving through a book in continuous or semi-continuous readings…now and then one comes to a major block of material that demands some consideration as a whole…such is the nature of the block before us now.”[4] As such the teachings in this section of Scripture offer a good glimpse of Luke’s portrayal of the ethics of Jesus. The aforementioned combined with the fact that the parables and their themes are very much intertwined here contributed to my decision to order this work chronologically rather than thematically and conclude with a summary analysis. As will be shown through an analysis of the parables recorded in this section of the gospel, Luke makes it apparent that central to Jesus’ teaching on ethics is an encouragement for us to persevere in seeking God, place our faith in Him alone, and extend mercy to others for the Kingdom of God is arriving.

Luke 10: The Parable of the Good Samaritan.           

In Chapter 10, Luke records Jesus as telling the famous parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37; cf. Mt 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-31) in response to a lawyer’s question about what one must do to inherit eternal life (v.25). The lawyer, when affirmed in his assertion that “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself (v.27; cf. Deut 6:5, Lev. 19:18),” asks Jesus who is his neighbour. At the conclusion of the familiar parable, Jesus responds to the question of the lawyer (v.29) with his own question: “which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers (v.36)?” The man responds that it was “the one who showed him mercy (v.37).” Jesus then tells him to do likewise. Showing mercy is central to this parable and a key ethic to be displayed in the already arriving Kingdom of God.

Luke 11: the Parables of the Widow, the Sleeping Neighbour, and the Loving Father.

            Following Jesus’ utterance of ‘the Lord’s Prayer’ and in response to the disciples’ insistence that Jesus teach them to pray, he tells them a couple of parables. One is about a man who gets out of bed solely because of his neighbour’s persistence (11:5-8, cf. Luke 18:1-8); another relays how a father will not do his child harm in response to his child’s request – i.e. giving a snake for a fish or a scorpion for an egg. We must be persistent in approaching God and have faith that He will give us what is best – He will do so even more than an earthly father does for his own children (v.13). Since the Kingdom is here and will be fully realized, we must act accordingly: “ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened (vv.10-11).” We must display the ethic of perseverance in approaching the Lord with the faith that he will give us what we need.

Luke 12: The Parables of the Rich Fool, the Watchful Slaves, and the Faithful Slaves.

            Jesus tells a number of parables about relying on God and striving for the Kingdom that are included in the twelfth chapter of Luke. The first one (12:13-21) is in response to a demand from someone in the crowd, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me (v.13).” Jesus replies, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions (v.15)” and then he tells the crowd a parable about a rich fool. This parable is one that I have always found interesting. The man in the story seems to be planning for his retirement. He plans to store up his savings of grain and goods and ‘relax, eat, drink, be merry’ for many years to come. “But God said to him, “You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be (v.20)?”

            Is this story saying that we should not save for the future? It is certainly saying that we cannot put our faith in our possessions or our wealth. It is only when we are rich toward God that we are safe. Jesus explains this parable further to his disciples. He tells them “therefore…do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing (vv.22-23).” He repeats the command not to worry or be afraid 5 times in verses 22-40. God will provide just as God provides for the birds and the lilies; therefore, we should not concern ourselves with that. As Jesus is recoded as teaching (12:31-34) to his disciples:

For it is the nations of the world that strive after all these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, strive for his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. "Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The ethical statement of this parable then seems to be that we should not be storing up our wealth for an unknown future here. We should not be concerned about how much money we will have to retire or even whether or not we can retire. “The fact is, says Jesus, that anxiety reflects a lack of trust in God, a lack of interest in the kingdom, [and] is not productive.”[5] We should not be concerned with the things of this present age like what we are to eat, drink, and wear. The Lord knows what we need and, like the father when his child asks for an egg (Luke 11:13), He will provide what is needed (12:31). Rather than be concerned about financial matters, we would be better to strive for the Kingdom of God and do the will of the Father.

            Jesus no sooner concludes his explanation of the parable of the rich fool than he launches into another parable, this one about a watchful slave (12:35-40). It is telling his disciples to “be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour (v.40).”

            When Jesus is questioned further about this by Peter who asks, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for everyone (v.41),” he responds with an elaboration upon or a continuation of the previous parable (v.42-47). Jesus states that “blessed is the slave that the master will find at work when he arrives (v.45).” This is an encouragement and a warning that we should maintain a good solid work ethic for our master and His Kingdom. We should not indulge ourselves at the expense of others thinking that he will not return soon for “the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful (v.46).”

            There are a couple of interesting ideas that are raised at this point in the parable. If we do not continue working faithfully for God and if we abuse our fellow workers we will be cut to pieces like the unfaithful - those who are not his servants. It is also interesting that the punishment is not reserved only for those who actively abuse others. There is a ‘severe beating’ awaiting those who know what the master wants and yet do not to do it. Ignorance of the master’s will does not spare one a beating if their actions merit it. Although “answerability is proportional to awareness,”[6] ignorance is not an excuse: the guilty, however ignorant they may be, are still responsible for their actions.

Jesus further states that “from everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded (12:48).” This parable is significant for those of us in the Church. We cannot ignore the will of the Father. We have been given knowledge and - in contemporary western nations - much more than that. If we spend our time indulging ourselves and abusing others, we will be cut to pieces. If we even relax our efforts for the Kingdom, a beating is awaiting us. I find it interesting also that this parable does seem (based on the related words[7] and the statements in 12:22 and 41) to be built upon the foundation laid in the parable of the rich fool. In that case, if we do store up our wealth in banks, investments, and possessions (v.21) on earth instead of selling our belongings and giving alms (v.33), then we are worrying about ourselves rather than getting ready and working for the Kingdom and that would be a mistake because we need instead to be the ‘faithful and prudent manager’ (v.42) who is found ready (v.40) and working (v.43) when his master returns.

                Luke 13-14: The Parables of the Fig Tree and Great Feast.

Jesus extols the ethics of patience, perseverance and mercy through the parable of the fig tree (13:6-9). The man shows mercy towards the tree by not chopping it down and throwing it into the fire. He shows perseverance in giving it one more year to produce fruit. God likewise shows us mercy and as such we should extend the same to others.

The Parable of the Great Feast (Luke 14:15-24), as told by Luke, is significant. It does not have the open rebellion that is represented in Matthew’s version of the story (Matthew 22:1-14). Luke does not refer to a king and his vassals but merely “someone [who] gave a great dinner and invited many (14:16).” Jesus responds to the comment recorded in v.15, “blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the Kingdom of God (v.15)” with this parable.

The parable tells of people who reject the invitation to attend the banquet and have their seats given to others instead. It is interesting that those who reject the invitation appear to be wealthy (vv.18-19) whereas those who accept the invitation are “the crippled, the blind, and the lame (v.21).” This is particularly noticeable given the physical context in which Jesus is speaking. Jesus is eating a meal at the house of a leader of the Pharisees (v.1) and noticing that the guests are clamouring for places of honour, he states that “for all who exalt themselves will be humbled and those who humble themselves will be exalted (v.11).” He further tells his host that “when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous (14:13-14).” Jesus here is speaking of both the ethics of humility and taking care of the poor.

There is one more element that is particularly interesting about this parable. Recorded in verse 23, after the invitation to the banquet has been accepted by the poor and the crippled, there is still room so the master commands his slave to “Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled.” These people are not given a choice; they are compelled to experience the joys of the feast whereas “none of those who were invited will taste my dinner (v.24).” This is interesting in that some were permitted to reject the invitation and others were not. While not understanding the full ramifications of this, I suggest that it would be wise not to reject the invitation.

Luke 15: The Parables of the Lost.

In the parables about the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son, Jesus speaks about the idea that “…there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance (Luke 15:7).” It is a cause for celebration when one joins the kingdom. In the parable of the lost son (15:11-32) the father tells the oldest son that “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found (15:31-32).'” Ethically speaking then we should also be concerned about, show mercy towards, and also celebrate the return of those once lost to the Kingdom.

Luke 16: The Parables of the Dishonest Manager and The Rich Man and Lazareth.

The parable of the shrewd (dishonest) manager (Luke 16:1-8) is at first a difficult one to understand. Initially it seems to almost exalt the manager’s dishonesty in obtaining favour that was lost. However, the parable is really addressing the concept of prolepsis and that the future has arrived (in this case the man’s unemployment) and he must act accordingly before it is fully realized. The manager, recognizing that he is rightfully out of work, shows mercy to the master’s tenants, hoping to gain their favour and mercy when his unemployment is fully realized. Ethically this is how we should respond. As our life (employment) here is ending and could conclude anytime, we should show mercy and make preparations for the coming (post-employment) era. “Through this parable Jesus admonishes his hearers to cast caution aside, seize the moment of opportunity and make provision for their future before God. The Kingdom of God is at hand.”[8]

What about other ethical sub-themes? What about the dishonesty? Does Jesus here condone the manager’s dishonesty? No, he does not. Verse eight draws the distinction between ‘the children of this age’ and the shrewdness of ‘the children of the light.’ He then makes it clear that dishonesty is not being upheld as a value, for "whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much (v.10).” What about the pursuit of wealth or financial security? Is Jesus applauding that in this parable? No. He states quite firmly to the contrary that, “You cannot serve God and wealth (v.13).” and that “what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God (v.15).”

Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus builds nicely on the groundwork laid in the previous verses. Some people have suggested that the rich man in this parable suffered his consequences as a result of serving money rather than serving God. This, however, is never stated. The only things that are explicitly mentioned about the rich man are those that serve to indicate his wealth: “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day (v.19).” And, as Jesus states through the character of Abraham in this parable, “Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony (v.25).” There is no explicit parallel drawn between his present circumstances and how the rich man obtained his earthly wealth.

Is Jesus saying then that a rich man will not enter heaven (cf. Luke 6:20-26, 18:18-30)? It is significant that in this particular parable the man is addressed by Abraham. Abraham is not only the recipient of the promise and the father of the chosen people, he was also a rich man and he is represented as being on the good side of the ‘great chasm.’

What then is the main point of Jesus’ telling of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? I submit that it is this: riches are no guarantee of heavenly security. Today, in North America, there seems to be a growing appreciation for or even outright acceptance of the prosperity gospel: ‘Divine favour is represented by wealth.’ This and its converse – that disadvantage is a result of sin or Devine displeasure (cf. John 9:1-5) – was evidently common in Jesus’ time.[9] I submit that Jesus is working to dispel this myth by representing in the parable that wealth is not an indicator of God’s favour. How then should this affect our ethics as the Kingdom of God is arriving? We should not concern ourselves with obtaining wealth. Possibly a better expression of loyalty to the Kingdom would be to extend mercy to the poor men who lay at our gates and long to satisfy their hunger with even our scraps.

Luke 18: the Parables of the Persistent Widow and the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

Jesus told a parable about the need to pray and not to lose heart. As recorded in Luke 18:1-8, he spoke the parable of the persistent widow. In this parable Jesus sets up the least favourable circumstances for the widow. Generally widows in 1^st Century Palestine have nothing; it is implied therefore that she has no wealth with which to buy the judge’s favour. This judge to whom she is appealing also neither fears neither God nor respects people (18:2, 4). She may not appeal to him in the name of God or people: it will not influence his decision. How then does she receive justice? By persistently bothering the judge (v.5). If the ungodly give into persistence even though they do not care about God, man, or a situation in general, how much more will God “grant justice to his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night (v.7)?”

One should persistently engage God in prayer. When we need justice we should not grow weary but rather continue to cry out both day and night.  The story is not solely about prayer in general, however, “the theme is that of the vindication of God's misunderstood and suffering people.”[10] As well as obtaining justice, I suggest, that this parable is also teaching us that we will increase our faith in the process. The parable concludes with the question, “And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth (v.8)?” This, as well as the analogy of the Mustered Seed (17:6) and the healing of the Samaritan leper to whom Jesus remarks, “Your faith has made you well (17:19),” I believe directly relate to the disciples’ demand that Jesus increase there faith that is recorded in 17:5. Ethically speaking then, as the Kingdom is coming into the world we must be persistent in prayer, yes, and we should also have faith that the LORD will grant justice.

We must have faith in God rather than ourselves. Jesus told a parable of a tax collector and a Pharisee praying at the temple (18:9-14). The Pharisee was thankful about his position in life: he could have been a thief, rogue, adulterer or tax collector. Instead he was a Pharisee. He could have committed all the wrongs of the aforementioned groups but instead he fasted twice a week and tithed all his income. This man is contrasted with a specific tax collector who, approaching God in the temple, stands far off and “would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ (v.13).”

The man who was a Pharisee did many things right (tithing, fasting) but what he did wrong was to exalt himself (v.14) and even trust in himself (v.9) and his own actions rather than the justice and mercy of God, “for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted (v.14, cf. 14:11).” Is this parable saying that we should not tithe or fast? No. Is it saying that we should not be thankful for what we have? No. I believe that it is saying that we can no more put our faith in ourselves and our actions than we can in our money (cf. Luke 6:20-26, 16:19-30, 18:18-30). We should approach God persistently (cf. 18:1-8) and humbly. Ethically speaking, we should not exalt ourselves but rather seek God in humility.

Luke 19: The Parables of the Ten Pounds, and the Rebellious Citizenry.

The Kingdom of God is invading the present. People, not fully understanding this, assumed that it would be fully realised in the immediate future. To address this Jesus told a parable about faithful slaves and wicked citizens (19:11-26). A nobleman went to a distant country to get royal power. He gave responsibility for some of his money to his slaves and the ordered them to “Do business with these until I come back (v.13).” When he returned in his full authority (cf. v.12), he sought to find out how much they had gained through trading. One had a ten-fold increase and was rewarded with the rule of 10 cities; another with a five-fold increase was awarded 5 cities to rule; a third failed to invest the money. He instead laid the accusation before the noble that  “you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow (v.21).” The noble takes the money from the man and gives it to the one who was blessed with the 10-fold increase.

This scenario is weaved together with another about the citizens of the noble’s country: they hated him. They told him after he left that they did not want him to rule over them. They openly rebelled. When he returned he demanded, “These enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence (27).” The ethical implications of this second scenario are easy to understand: if we rebel against the Son of Man, when he returns in his full authority, we will suffer the appropriate consequences.

What about the slaves though? The slaves are in the direct employ of the master. They are charged with taking care of a portion of the nobleman’s wealth. They do not rebel like the citizens. The third slave in the story is different from the citizens in that he is employed by the noble. However, he still does not receive his reward; he forfeits it. As the citizens are those who reject Jesus as king, I submit that the slave represents those who claim him as king but fail to carry out their responsibilities. When Jesus returns it is not enough to claim to be his slave, we must actively use what he has given us to work for him or we risk forfeiting our reward.

             Summary Analysis of Ethical Themes. 

Luke has been referred to as a gospel for the poor and this lengthy section of the gospel addresses a sort of egalitarianism in the impending Kingdom. Indeed, as we have seen, he refers to the ethics of money a fair amount in this portion of his gospel and it can be argued that Luke is saying that one cannot be rich in this realm and still inherit the Kingdom of God. While this may be true, it is certainly true that in order to use the money that we have been entrusted with ethically, we must not put our faith in it. Those who put their faith in their possessions cannot expect to be a part of the Kingdom of God.

Luke, as reflected in the parables recorded in this section of his gospel, makes the claim that for those who are subjects of the Kingdom, it is unethical to place one’s faith in anything other than God: money, one’s religious expression, one’s own abilities, or anything else for that matter. One has to put one’s faith in God alone and one may not renounce, relinquish, or be found lacking in that faith - even if one claims to be a servant of God. We must persevere. It would be incongruent and unethical to claim to serve the Lord and yet be found derelict in our duties to serve Him.

We must also be humble. We acknowledge that it is God who is the ultimate authority. We obtain nothing of any significance on our own. The Kingdom is of God’s making, not ours. In the Kingdom, we will therefore not exalt ourselves above anyone else. We will be humble.

We will experience the joy that comes from extending mercy. Mercy is one of the key ethical values of the Kingdom. God has shown such mercy to us that it is unthinkable that we would ever be able to even come close to repaying Him. Luke expresses, through these parables, that since this is the case we should go and extend mercy to others and rejoice when others experience that same mercy: such is the Kingdom of God.  

Return to Index

Acts 2: An Interpretation (view Scriptures)

  Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Winter 2005)

Martin “Luther regarded Acts as a beautiful mirror in which one beholds the truth: Sola fides justificat.”[1] “The fathers likewise admired the contents of the book, noting the great variety of subjects and the immense value of each: the great testimony in regard to the apostolic doctrine and the church; the fundamental outline of church government, church discipline, and church organisation; an arsenal full of artillery against the anti-Christ; a laboratory full of remedies against all soul-destroying errors of faith and offences in conduct; a larder stocked with all kinds of food for faith, patience and hope; an inspiration for love and all its works; a very treasury of learning and right doctrine.”[2]  Acts 2 is important for “the succession from the now-departed Messiah to the Twelve is made complete with the arrival of God’s promised Spirit.”[3] It is this “reception of God’s Spirit (2:1-4) [which] enables the community to carry an inspired word about God’s risen Messiah to the entire household of Israel.”[4] As such “no episode narrated in Acts has received more attention than this one”[5] and the world.

Context: setting and date.

Acts is set after Jesus’ death and resurrection, ca. 31-44 CE: from Pentecost until the persecution of Herod Agrippa[6]. The setting moves from being “in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8).  Acts 2, itself, takes place in Jerusalem[7]. It was written “sometime in the later decades of the first century;”[8] However, “the date and provenance of Acts, while important for determining its original social location, also cannot be determined with precision.”[9]

Context: Historical Setting.

In the first century CE, Rome was the superpower of the area – controlling the entire Mediterranean basin, including Judea, and parts of Europe and Britain. The Roman Emperors from the time of Jesus until the end of the NT period were Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, and Vespian[10]. Claudius (Acts 11:28) and Nero (Acts 25:10) are referred to in Acts itself. Kings Agrippa II and Agrippa III were the local “Kings of the Jews.”[11] A census taken in 48 CE put the population of the citizenry of Rome at 6 984 000 and of the Empire at 25 419 000[12].

A couple of major historical events, not covered in the Bible, greatly influenced Jewish, Roman, and indeed Christian culture of the time. One was the Jewish revolt (68-73 CE) that led to the destruction of the temple (70 CE); the other was the Diaspora: “the flight or enslavement of a million Jews so accelerated their spread through the Mediterranean that their scholars came to date the Diaspora from the destruction of Herod’s Temple. We have seen that this Dispersion had [actually] begun six centuries before in the Babylonia Captivity, and had been renewed in the settling of Alexandria.”[13] “Fifty years before the fall of Jerusalem, Strabo, with anti-Semitic exaggeration, reported that it is hard to find a single place on the habitable earth that has not admitted this tribe of men, and is not possessed by it.”[14] This set the stage nicely for the gospel to be brought to the surrounding nations.

Context: The Book of Acts.

Acts 2 is included in the greater context of the account of Acts, which in turn is part of the NT and Christian Bible. Many scholars consider Acts to be Volume Two of the book of Luke,[15] “(given the name “Luke-Acts in modern scholarship), [and] written by an unknown author (given the name “Luke” in early ecclesiastical tradition).”[16] “Acts is known in two main textual versions; the Western text (Codex D) is 10 percent longer than the Alexandrian text (p45, Codex B) …most scholars favour the Alexandrian text.”[17]

Genre.

Acts is the “only historical narrative of events involving Jesus’ followers after the resurrection and the first appearances of Jesus.”[18] The Gospel of Luke is a bios. This has to be taken into account, as “Acts cannot be considered in isolation from the purpose of Luke’s Gospel. The two…make up an integral whole.”[19]

Purpose.

Luke-Acts is to be read as one continuous story that takes us “from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he [Jesus] had chosen;” (Acts 1:2) then through “his suffering [and when] he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God”, (Acts 1:3) to the advent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the life of the Apostles and the early Christian church. As stated in Introduction to the New Testament, the author “alone indicates in such a profound way the continuity between the story of Jesus and the story of the early church.”[20]

 “The specific purpose for writing this narrative called Acts is a matter of debate.”[21] Considered alongside of Luke, Acts purpose seemingly “would have been to strengthen the Christian movement in the face of opposition by ensuring them in their interpretation and experience of the redemptive purpose and faithfulness of God and by calling them to continued fidelity and witness in their service of the kingdom of God. Hence, the focus of Luke-Acts is ecclesiological.”[22] However, in “placing the list of nations within the context of Roman political propaganda [it] invites us to re-examine the purpose of Luke-Acts. Through the list of nations and the critique of Roman imperial ideology, Luke-Acts provides its audience with a stronger sense of who they are in relation to the Roman World.”[23] That being said,  “almost a third of the book of Acts consists of speeches”[24] which serve to relate what also might be considered the texts “central claims: God’s resurrection of Jesus confirms him as Messiah and through him God has acted faithfully to the Biblical promise to save the world from sin and death. These speeches are ‘missionary speeches.’”[25]  “In each of these theories of the purpose of Acts, Luke’s decisive purpose is alleged to be some factor behind the text rather than within it. [Therefore] might the place to begin a study of Acts be at the beginning, with the book’s own statement of purpose to Theophilus (1:1-5):”[26]

In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. While staying with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the Father. "This," he said, "is what you have heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Author and Recipient.

As the purpose for writing is has been the topic of some discussion, so has its authorship. “The Acts of the Apostles began its life as the written conversation between a storyteller …and the story’s first reader (Theophilus).”[27] The author, however, unlike the recipient (1:1), is never named.  “We do not know for sure who wrote Luke-Acts. Though it is doubtful that it was Paul’s fellow worker mentioned in Philemon 24 [but] let us call the writer ‘Luke’ in accordance with tradition.”[28]

Plot and Textual Context.

In Acts a number of significant events are recorded. Prior to Chapter 2, the disciples are commanded to assemble, wait for, receive the Holy Spirit, and then to be “witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8). This is also the basic plot outline of Acts. Jesus leaves and promises the Holy Spirit. A replacement for the apostle Judas, who killed himself, is chosen (1:28) and the readers are then presented with the record of what happened in Chapter 2, “when the Spirit arrives in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost as the fulfilment of prophecy and as the answer to the communities expectant prayers.”[29]

Acts 2:1-4.

“The succession from the now-departed Messiah to the Twelve is made complete with the arrival of God’s promised Spirit.”[30] It is this “reception of God’s Spirit (2:1-4) [which] enables the community to carry an inspired word about God’s risen Messiah to the entire household of Israel.”[31] As such “no episode narrated in Acts has received more attention than this one.”[32] Acts 2:1-4 is rich with imagery that one can easily relate to the OT: the actual day, the fire-like shapes, the rushing spirit, and the different languages.

Acts 2:1-4 – Pentecost.

The disciples had all gathered together for Pentecost. Pentecost had significance prior to Acts: “it was the Jewish harvest festival that celebrated the completion of the harvest, Exod. 23:14, etc.”[33] “Long after the time of the apostles a second day was added, and the entire festival became known for what it is for Jews today, a celebration of the giving of the law at Sinai;”[34] it commemorated Moses’ reception of the Decalogue directly from God on Mount Sinai. “The Sinai typology contains two key elements: the giving of the Torah occurred roughly fifty days after the Passover (so Exod. 19:1) as an act of covenant renewal, and the Torah-based covenant renewal was mediated through Moses.”[35] Some “interpreters posit a new dispensation has dawned when the Holy Spirit through the Messiah mediates a new covenant.”[36] (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Rom. 8:2). It is therefore significant that on the annual commemoration of this event, Peter and the disciples would receive God’s Holy Spirit.  However there is still some question about whether this connection is intentional or not, whether “the symbolism that links Pentecost and Sinai was available”[37] to the author at the time of writing, or whether this “careful staging of this event on a particular day may reflect his own theological innovation.”[38]

Acts 2:1-4 – Pentecost – Wind.

It is notable that the Holy Spirit descended like “the rush of a violent wind” (v.2). This is reminiscent of the wind or Spirit hovering over the water at the creation of the world (Gen 1:2) and “Jesus himself compared the coming of the Spirit to the blowing of the wind, John 3:8.”[39] “The passage does not claim that the Holy Spirit is a wind…rather the Holy Spirit is compared to the sound wind makes (cf. Gen 1:2).”[40] “This mighty sound was surely a symbol of power, and we may recall that both the Hebrew and the Greek words for Spirit, Ruach and IInevma denote wind or breath.”[41]

Acts 2:1-4 – Tongues of Fire.

Another connection that may be drawn from this passage relates to the ‘tongues, as of fire,’ that appeared among them. This is reminiscent of the pillar of fire with which God led the Israelites out of captivity and into the ‘promised land’. “Fire-like tongues may well recall the alter with its holy fire…fire is also a symbol of purity and purification.”[42] And “these tongues are plainly a fulfilment of Luke 3:16: ‘He shall baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.’”[43]  This image of tongues “heralds the gift of speaking in foreign languages (2:4) as the Spirit enables the community…to testify publicly.”[44]

The fact that the people were able to speak in different languages seems to contrast the tower of Babel. “Rocholl, Philosophie der Geschichte beautifully states this view: ‘the speaking with tongues by the witnesses of the Mediator celebrates the resurrection of the unity buried at Babel.’”[45] There the Lord divided with language. Here, He unites with language. This parallel, however, was probably not intended by the author.[46]

Acts 2:5-13

In Acts 2:5-13, the relevance of the gifts of the different languages is divulged – “devout Jews from every nation under heaven [were] living in Jerusalem” (v5).  “In effect, the entire house of Israel, including ‘both Jews and proselytes’ (2:10) is present to hear this inspired witness to God’s faithfulness to Israel.”[47] Some even relate this to the giving of the law at Sinai where it is argued, according to a rabbinic tradition of a sort of tongues that “every people received the law in its own language.”[48] There may indeed be an implied parallel here.[49]

Acts 2:8-11 – List of Nations.

There is much to be said about the list of nations that follows (2:8-11).  “Such geographical lists appear elsewhere in ancient literature, notably in the Rudiments by Paulus Alexandrinus, a fourth century astrological treatise, where the nations of the world are apportioned among the signs of the zodiac.”[50] This resemblance, however, has been exaggerated and “Luke’s list is relevant to its context and has some features of special interest.”[51] Jews are referred to from both the east and the west: Aramaic and Greek speaking lands but of particular interest is the inclusion of Judea in the list of nations. “The reference to Judea has frequently been regarded as scribal error, partly for grammatical reasons and partly because it is unlikely that special mention would be made of Judeans residing in Jerusalem.”[52]

Acts 2:8-11 – Tongues (Languages).

The people were astonished. They wondered, "are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? … in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power” (Acts 2:8-11). The Lord enabled them to proclaim His powerful acts. The acceptance and understanding of this was not immediately universal.

Acts 2:14-21

This “confusion leads Peter to interpret the divine audition they have witnessed while dispelling their ignorance about the Messiah.”[53] It is in Acts 2:14-21 that he refutes detractors’ claims that these men are drunk (2:13) by pointing out that it is still morning (2:15).

“Peter proceeds to preach Jesus…He is the fulfilment of its [Israel’s] greatest need and the flowering of its greatest possibilities. Nowhere outside the OT will we find more sure and authentic indication of this fact.”[54] He refers them to the prophecy of Joel of which this is a fulfilment: “in those days I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and they shall Prophecy” (Acts 2:18, cf. Joel 2). A “prominent feature of the words that Peter quotes is the prediction of the outpouring of God’s Spirit…‘on all flesh.’ Luke sees in these words an adumbration of the worldwide Gentile mission.”[55] It is also significant that Peter quotes from the LXX version of Joel 3:1-5. This “Greek rendering allows Luke’s Peter to use this text in support of his kerygmatic claim that Jesus is ‘Lord.’”[56] “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Joel 2:21). He uses the word kyrios for Lord. “Kyrios translates here the Hebrew word for God and therefore allows Peter to argue that this ‘Lord’ is the risen Jesus. (so 2:36)”[57]

Acts 2:22-36

Peter then opens, as recorded in 2:22, with the declaration that, “You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say.” This naturally draws the readers’ attention to see what is contained in this next section. What is immediately striking is that Peter utilizes a number of ‘you statements’: “you are the Israelites… Jesus of Nazareth [was] a man attested to you by God.” (v.22) “This man handed over to you…you crucified” (v.23). “How could human perversity be set forth with more appalling clarity: the best to which man can conceive despoiled by the worst to which man can stoop?”[58]

These statements of the evil actions of the listener are contrasted with the good God has done: the “signs that God did through him…” (v.22) “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” (v.23) “God raised him up, having freed him from death” (v. 24). “God did not intervene in man’s malicious plans for crucifixion…but He wondrously reversed the verdict and changed the cross from the seal of death to the sign of salvation and the entrance to life.”[59]

Peter draws the listeners’ attention to and explains the prophecy of David (Psalm 16:8-11) pertaining to this matter. “This would make Jesus’ resurrection credible and convincing proof that he was Christ.”[60] Peter concludes by reiterating what God has done, made Jesus both Lord and Messiah, and what the Israelites, have done – crucified him (v.36).

Acts 2:37-41

The response to Peter’s speech is notable. They “were cut to the heart and said…what should we do?” (37). Peter’s reply raises a couple of more points. Peter tells them here to “Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v.38). The Israelites here must be baptised with water to receive the baptism of the Spirit and have their sins forgiven; Cornelius and the other Gentiles with him were baptised with water only after they had already received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:26-28). As such it is important not “reduce this to a step-by-step pattern for a person’s salvation…here is no order of salvation but rather a conclusion of Peter’s speech.”[61] “This pattern of conversion appears nowhere else in Acts.”[62]  

Acts 2:42-47: Conclusion

The concluding section of Chapter 2, verses 42-47, “seems to be composite; vss. 42 and 46 read like parallel summaries, and may be doublets. Possibly vss. 42 and 43 are Luke’s summarizing link by which he joins his account of Pentecost with a more ancient fragment, vss. 44-47, describing the life of the primitive community.”[63]

Acts 2:41 had noted that Three thousand were added to their number. That is an amazing number particularly considering that the followers recorded at the beginning of Acts (1:15) only numbered about 120. These new followers then saw and did a number of interesting things: “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (v. 42). “Teaching the ones who know about what is known continues to include the gospel…the Church was not to drift from one momentary outburst to the next.”[64]

The new believers devoted themselves to “fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (v. 42). “The exact phrase ‘breaking of bread’ occurs only in vs. 42 and in Luke 24:35; but the verbal phrase ‘to break bread’ occurs also in Luke 24:30; Acts 2:46; 20:7-11; 27:35; and in connection with the feeding of the multitude, and the institution of the Lord’s Supper. This phrase springs from the Jewish custom of beginning a meal with the prayer, ‘Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, that thou didst make bread to be on earth,’ followed by a ceremonial breaking of bread.”[65] “The Spirit has produced koinonia. Some have remarked that the real miracle of Pentecost is to be found here – that so diverse an assemblage of people ‘from every nation under heaven’ (2:5) a unified body of believers is formed.”[66]

It is notable that this early unity “found practical expression in experiments in Christian communism;”[67] they saw the signs done by the apostles and “had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need” (2:44-45); The believers spent time in the temple and “broke bread at home” (2: 47) and they praised God.  As a result, they had the “goodwill of all the people and day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved” (2: 47)

Return to Index

Acts 10:1-16 Interpretation: The Intentional bringing of the Gospel to the Gentiles. (view Scriptures)

  Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Fall 2006)

Acts 10 is important because it is understood to be the place where the good news is brought to the Gentiles. Peter is recorded as declaring after this encounter with God and the centurion, Cornelius, “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). Acts 10:1-16 contains the visions the Lord gave to Cornelius and to the Apostle Peter.

Setting:  Date; Dating.

Acts is set after Jesus’ death and resurrection, circa 30 CE. It was written “sometime in the later decades of the first century;”[1] However, “the date and provenance of Acts, while important for determining its original social location, also cannot be determined with precision.”[2]

Setting:  Historical Context.

In the first century CE, Rome was the superpower of the area – controlling the entire Mediterranean basin, including Judea, and parts of Europe and Britain. The Roman Emperors from the time of Jesus until the end of the NT period were Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, and Vespian[3]. The reigns of Claudius (Acts 11:28) and Nero (Acts 25:10) are referred to in Acts itself. Kings Agrippa II and Agrippa III were the local “Kings of the Jews.”[4] A census taken in 48 CE put the population of the citizenry of Rome at 6 984 000 and of the Empire at 25 419 000.[5]

At the beginning of Acts 10, Peter is located at Joppa, the port of Jerusalem; Cornelius is at Caesarea. Previously “Caesarea had been an insignificant place called ‘Strato’s Tower.’ The Emperor Augustus gave it to Herod the Great who rebuilt it.”[6] At the time the events recorded in Acts took place, it had a famous artificial harbour and was the administrative capital of Judea[7].

A couple of major historical events, not covered in the Bible, greatly influenced Jewish, Roman and indeed Christian culture of that time. One was the Jewish revolt (68-73 CE) that led to the destruction of the temple (70 CE); the other was the Diaspora: “the flight or enslavement of a million Jews so accelerated their spread through the Mediterranean that their scholars came to date the Diaspora from the destruction of Herod’s Temple. We have seen that this Dispersion had [actually] begun six centuries before in the Babylonia Captivity, and had been renewed in the settling of Alexandria.”[8] “Fifty years before the fall of Jerusalem, Strabo, with anti-Semitic exaggeration, reported that it is hard to find a single place on the habitable earth that has not admitted this tribe of men, and is not possessed by it.”[9] This set the stage nicely for the gospel to be brought to the Gentiles.

Context: Book of Acts.

Acts 10:1-16 is included in the greater context of the book of Acts, which in turn is part of the New Testament and the Christian Bible. Many scholars consider Acts to be Volume Two of the book of Luke,[10] which was “written by an unknown author -given the name “Luke” in early ecclesiastical tradition.”[11] “Acts is known in two main textual versions; the Western text (Codex D) is 10 percent longer than the Alexandrian text (p45, Codex B) …most scholars favour the Alexandrian text.”[12] Acts is often “given the name Luke-Acts in modern scholarship.”[13]

Genre and Purpose

Luke-Acts is to be read as one continuous story that takes us “from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen” (Acts 1:2); then through “his suffering [and when] he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God”(Acts 1:3), to the advent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the life of the Apostles and the early Christian church; as such, the fact that Luke is a bios has to be taken into account. As stated in Introduction to the New Testament, the author of Luke-Acts “alone indicates in such a profound way the continuity between the story of Jesus and the story of the early church.”[14]

Acts is the “only historical narrative of events involving Jesus’ followers after the resurrection and the first appearances of Jesus.”[15] Acts’ purpose, when considered alongside of Luke “would have been to strengthen the Christian movement in the face of opposition by ensuring them in their interpretation and experience of the redemptive purpose and faithfulness of God and by calling them to continued fidelity and witness in their service of the kingdom of God. Hence, the focus of Luke-Acts is ecclesiological.”[16]

Setting: Contextual Background.

In Acts prior to Chapter 10 a number of significant events are recorded. Jesus leaves and promises the Holy Spirit. A replacement for the Apostle Judas, who killed himself, is chosen (1:28). Pentecost is accompanied by the gifts of prophesying and tongues. There are many signs including healings (cf. 3:7-8, 5:15), a resurrection (9:40-41) and even a divine execution (5:1-10) that are evident in the early ministry of Peter and the Apostles after Jesus’ ascension to heaven.  The apostles themselves spend time in front of the authorities and in custody (Chapter 4) and more believers are constantly being added to their number (5:14). There is also early conflict between Hellenistic and Jewish believers recorded in Acts 6. The first martyrdom -that of Stephen- is recorded in Chapter 7. The famous stories of Simon the sorcerer (8:9ff) and Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch occur in Chapter 8, as does the introduction of Paul - his conversion is recorded in Chapter 9. “Beginning in Jerusalem the good news has been taken out into Samaria, then, with the conversation of the Ethiopian, to the very ‘ends of the earth’ (cf. 1:8)”[17] It is in this context that Chapter 10 commences with the story of Peter and the Centurion.

Acts 10:1-8: The Gospel to the Gentiles.

In Acts 10:1-8 the reader is introduced to Cornelius and the vision that God gave to him. Cornelius was not only a foreigner but also a commander of the occupying military forces. The Romans were known to tolerate foreign religions and even invoke the names of regional deities before they attacked a city;[18] however, it is quite another thing for him to be “a devout man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and prayed constantly to God” (Acts 10:2).

Acts 10:1-8 - The Gospel to the Gentiles and the ‘Hellenists’

One of the questions that arises from this passage relates to the commonly held idea that this is a record of the Gospel being brought to the Gentiles for the first time. Cornelius “is introduced by language which presents him as already exhibiting similarities with members of the messianic assemblies.”[19] In Acts 6, it records that there was a dispute where “the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food” (Acts 6:1). From this it appears that there were already communities that consisted, at least in part, of Greek believers. A possible explanation for this is that the Hellenistic believers referred to in Acts prior to Chapter 10 may have been people of Jewish ethnicity who are were born abroad as apposed to those born in Israel who would be ‘the Jews.’ 

Acts 10:1-8 - The Gospel to the Gentiles and the Ethiopian Eunuch

There is, however, still the question of the “Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury;” (Acts 8:27) was this person a Jew? The fact that “he had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home; seated in his chariot, [and] he was reading the prophet Isaiah,” (Acts 8:27-28) would indicate that he was at least of the Jewish faith, a proselyte[20] if not fully of the Jewish race.

Acts 10:1-8 - The Gospel to the Gentiles and Cornelius.

Another logical question then is, was Cornelius a proselyte? As he was not a full member of the Jewish community, (cf. 10:22, 28) and “although Luke attaches considerable importance to the God-fearing Gentiles in Acts, we have no standard definition or precise classification of ‘God-fearing’ from the ancient world,”[21] it would seem that he was what we would consider an ‘adherent’ in today’s vernacular. Accepting that the Ethiopian eunuch of Chapter 8 was a proselyte, the very fact that Luke did not portray Philip as having the same aversion to him as ‘unclean’ as he did Peter to the Roman Centurion leads to the conclusion that Cornelius falls into an altogether separate category.

Acts 10:3, 10:10 - The Intentionality of God.

It is also interesting to note that in Acts, God is portrayed as active rather than subtle when approaching people. Ananias and Sapphira die (5:1-10); Philip disappears (8:39); Paul is ‘blinded by the light’ (9:3,8); there is an earthquake in the jail (16:26). God goes to great lengths to reach the Centurion of the Italian Cohort. He provides Cornelius with a trance (10:3) and Peter with a vision (10:10). God is direct with both Cornelius and Peter. “Luke wishes to emphasise that it is the hand of God in the affair; it is no chance whim.”[22]

Acts 10:10-16 - Peter’s vision.

Peter saw in his vision that “the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners” (Acts 10:11) and in the sheet were all kinds of unclean animals; Peter was commanded, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” (Acts 10:13). There are a number of things that are notable about this section. One is that God commands Peter to get up, kill, and eat. “The dietary laws are not a matter of etiquette or peculiar culinary habits. They are a matter of survival and identity for Jews. And yet can it be that these laws are being supplanted by some other basis for survival and identity,”[23] particularly since “the relation between the Jews and the Gentiles must have been very much in his mind with the expansion of the church.”[24]

Another point of interest is that the Lord commanded this three times. Peter denied Christ three times (Matt. 26:15, Mark 14:72, Luke 22:61); he was asked to look after Jesus’ sheep three times (John 21:17-19), and now – when he is to bring God’s message to the Gentiles’ – he is commanded three times to do this.

Acts 10:10-16 - Peter’s vision –Jewish Customs and Gentiles.

            Peter’s dream is how “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean” (Acts 10:28). It has been interpreted as the great revelation to Peter that the Gentiles are to be brought into community. It was decided, following this event and after much discussion, that the Gentiles do not need to follow all of the Jewish practices (Acts 15:7-10): “After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear.’”  James, with stipulations, concurred “…we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood” (Acts 15:19-20).

Acts 10:10-16 - Peter’s vision –Jewish Customs and Jewish Christians.

There are questions though about whether the Jewish believer was now entitled to eat what was previously known as ‘unclean’ food. It has also been questioned whether indeed Peter or even Paul was entirely convinced of this. Paul himself, in Acts 21, submits to the authority of James and the church in Jerusalem, purifies himself, enters the temple and upholds the law (Acts 21:22-26). In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, however, he rebukes Peter, who was eating with the Gentiles previously, because he began observing the Jewish customs when his context was changed by the presence of Jewish believers. Paul states that he “told Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” (Gal. 2:14)

How was a believing Jew supposed to act in the first century? Some could argue that Paul, himself, appeared to change his mind relating to circumcision[25] (Gal. 2:7) – at least in the case of Timothy (Acts 16:3). However, this seems rather to be related to Paul’s understanding of how one should act for the sake of proclamation. It does show the lengths to which he and Timothy were willing to go to proclaim the gospel. Paul is recorded as saying, “Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved” (1 Cor. 10:32-33). This seems to be Paul’s main argument relating to Jewish ceremonial law. It also reconciles nicely his actions in Acts 16 with Timothy, his rebuke of Peter (Gal. 2:14) and the passage in question, Acts 10:10-16.

Prior to even Peter’s vision, the food laws, themselves, were abolished by Jesus. “No doubt he [Peter] was present when his Master, in a debate with the Pharisees and scribes, insisted that it is not what goes into someone’s stomach that conveys defilement, but what comes out of one’s heart;”[26] “he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19). Therefore it would appear that Peter accepted Jesus’ teaching on clean and unclean foods well before the incident related in Acts 10:10-16 and was deserving of the rebuke he received much later from Paul as recorded in the book of Galatians.

Conclusion.

Peter, who had this vision and was initially “the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers” (Acts 15:7) begins to fade from prominence in the book of Acts as this message is brought to the Gentiles (Acts 13-28); God, however, from this point onwards uses Paul as his key instrument to accomplish this end (Gal. 2:7-8).  Of primary significance to this passage in Acts then seems to be “God’s plan to allow uncircumcised but repentant Gentiles to experience the blessing of Israel’s salvation (cf. 10:44; 11:15-18; 15:8-11) and define the terms of Paul’s future mission to the Gentiles.”[27]  God dealt directly with Peter, a Jew, and Cornelius, a Gentile. The good news is to be brought to the Gentiles and, as Peter stated, “We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (Acts 15:11) for “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).

Return to Index