Acts 10

Acts 10:1-48

The Acts of the Apostles Chapter 10:1-48 Acts 10:1-23 We now begin the study of a wonderful movement of inclusion. Here the door was opened to the Gentiles, and the first representative Gentile entered the Church.

We cannot affirm that no other Gentile during the eight years since Pentecost had found his way to Christ. In all probability others had been brought to the sound of the Name, and to obedience to the claim of Christ. This, however, is the record of the particular case which arrested attention, provoked controversy, and finally brought the apostles and the Church to a recognition of the larger meaning of the work of Christ.

In order to understand the wonder which was created by the conversion of Cornelius, we must appreciate certain facts. The Christian movement was distinctively Hebrew. Christ Himself after the flesh was a Hebrew. His chosen apostles were all Hebrews. His ministry was exercised among Hebrews. Indeed there were occasions when He made that very evident in some of the things He said.

That was the meaning of the almost strange word He spoke to one seeking soul: “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.” There were prophetic exceptions in the midst of His ministry; indeed, the one already cited was such an exception; for although He said that His ministry was exercised among the Hebrew people exclusively, He nevertheless granted to the seeking soul the blessing sought. All His ministry harmonized with His understanding that God’s intention in the Hebrew people was always that of reaching the people beyond that race; and so bringing blessing to them. Yet in order to understand the prejudices of the earliest members of the Christian Church, we must remember that Christianity was an outgrowth of Judaism, a development of Hebraism, and the early disciples had heard Jesus speak of God as the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. He had distinctly told them that He had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. He had insisted upon it in their hearing, that neither jot nor tittle of that law should pass till all was fulfilled.

Beyond the Pentecostal effusion, the Church growth had been almost exclusively Hebrew. There may have been exceptions, as scattered disciples preached Christ here and there, and Gentiles had heard and obeyed. But the general movement had been Hebrew. The disciples in Jerusalem had not ceased to observe the worship of the Hebrews. They still gathered in the courts of the Temple. Peter was still observing the Hebrew habit of prayer even in Joppa. He went up at the sixth hour of the day, which was the midday hour for prayer. Even Cornelius, in Cesarea had adopted the forms of Hebrew method in his religious life, and observed the ninth hour, another Hebrew hour of prayer.

There had, however, been a gradual approach to a wider understanding. The inclusion of Samaria was remarkable. When Philip reached Samaria and preached, and the news came to the apostles that the Samaritans had received the Word, there was an element of surprise in their attitude; but they recognized the movement as of God.

Moreover there had been the definite reception into the fellowship of a Gentile who undoubtedly was a proselyte, in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch. The future apostle to the Gentiles had been apprehended, had spent those lonely months or years in Arabia, had gone back to Jerusalem, had continued the ministry of Stephen to the Hellenist Jews, had been persecuted; and at the very time was in Tarsus of Cilicia. But so far, no Gentile, as entirely separated from Hebraism, had been admitted on apostolic sanction to the fellowship of the Christian Church. The admission of this man Cornelius rocked the Church to its very centre, threatening to divide it in twain. It was the beginning of a long-continued controversy, in the process of which the man now in Tarsus had to fight over and over again for the right of his apostleship, and for the larger ministry that he exercised.

Our present study is preparatory, and is occupied with the story of two visions, and of a meeting between the men who had come from Csesarea and Peter in the house of Simon the tanner. In this study we shall not attempt to dwell upon the final significance of the vision which was granted to Peter, for he had not come to a full understanding of it in the house of Simon the tanner. That broke upon him later in the house of Cornelius. Let us then consider these two visions; as to the two men, and as to the two results produced.

There is nothing whatever here to warrant the view that this man Cornelius was a proselyte in the full sense of the word. There were full proselytes, and proselytes of the gate; and the distinction was a very real one. Full proselytes of Judaism were such as submitted themselves entirely to all its rites and ordinances, were circumcized, and thus entered into all the privileges of the covenant people. Cornelius was not one of these. He may in all probability have been a proselyte of the gate, but such an one remained a Gentile in the thinking of the Hebrew. A proselyte of the gate was considered by the Hebrew as outside the covenant, outside the place of privilege; for he had not submitted to the ceremonial rites, and ordinances, even though he professed sympathy with the one master-idea of the Hebrew religion, that of its monotheistic philosophy.

We know certainly that Cornelius was a Roman soldier. He may have been a patrician or a plebeian. There was a great Roman family of the Cornelian patricians; and there was also a great family of enfranchised slaves, Cornelii, for an emperor had enfranchised a number of slaves, and had given them his own name. This man may have been of one or the other family; which, we cannot tell.

His religion arrests us. He was a centurion serving under Herod Agrippa, the representative of Roman power in that district. Stationed with his cohort at Csesarea, he was thus the representative of Rome for the quelling of tumults if they arose, for the insistence on order; a part of Rome’s great police force. He was an officer, moreover, of the Italian band, that is of a band made up of soldiers from Rome, entirely outside the influence of Judaism. He was a man of faith, faith in the one God, which he expressed in his life. He was devout in all the full and rich sense of that word. His faith in God was expressed in his gifts, for he gave alms to all the people. His faith in God was expressed supremely in his prayer, for he was a man who prayed alway.

Here then was a man outside the ancient economy, very largely uninfluenced by it in all probability in the earliest days of his life; himself a Roman, a centurion, of the Roman cohort, saturated with Roman ideas and ideals of government; and a man of faith in the one God, expressing his faith in the devotion of his life, in his almsgiving, in his prayer. Moreover he was a man whose godliness was such that the whole of his household had been influenced thereby. To go a little ahead of our present paragraph, we find that revealed in a remarkable way. When the angel visitation came to him, he called into conference “two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually.” Those under him shared his faith. This is a remarkable picture of a little household governed by a godly man outside Hebraism. This man Cornelius stands out, an interesting and unique figure, not to be accounted for as we first meet him, by Christianity, or by Judaism.

He is an evidence of the truth to which John draws attention in the introductory chapter of his Gospel, that there is a “light that lighteth every man.” He is an illustration by contrast of the truth to which Paul draws attention in the Roman epistle when he charges the Gentiles with this peculiar sin, that they held down the truth in unrighteousness; that is, that they had not obeyed the light they had; that whereas in the creation they might verily see the Divinity and the wisdom of God, instead of following that light and worshipping God, they worshipped the creature more than the Creator, made to themselves images and worshipped these. There was the Gentile sin.

But here was a man standing in contrast to that description, one who had been true to the light that was within him. He had followed it, yielded himself to it, and had become a worshipper of the one true living God.

But he had not passed into the fullness of life or of light. He also needed Christ. He also needed spiritual enduement. That is the key to the situation. The most remarkable thing about this story is the wonderful character of Cornelius before he became a Christian. Just as Jesus said, “Ye must be born anew” not to a man vile and contemptible and notorious in vulgar sin; but to Nicodemus, the highest product of Judaism, the man who, sincere and true and devout and enquiring, was seeking the teaching of every messenger from heaven; so also here, the first Gentile admitted into the recognized fellowship of the Christian Church was a Gentile who had come as far as he could, apart from the evangel.

There is no suggestion that in the mind of the Spirit, and presently in the mind of the Christian apostle, or in the mind of those early Christian thinkers, Cornelius was all he might be. Had there been no Christ, no evangel, had he never heard the message, then he would have been judged by the light he had, and his obedience to it; but he needed the fuller light, and his obedience to the early light was the condition upon which the angel came to him and said: Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa, and fetch one Simon. He shall tell thee what to do; the other things waiting for thee, and the larger life opening its doors before thee.

To return to Joppa. Let us notice the other man, Peter. In all likelihood he might have said with Saul of Tarsus, that he was “a Hebrew of Hebrews,” of pure Hebrew parentage. The prejudices of the past were still strong within him. He had seen something wider. Illuminated by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, he had interpreted the fact of the coming of the Spirit when he had said to the listening multitudes, “This is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel.” He had declared that the Spirit should be poured upon “all flesh.” That little phrase is the most inclusive possible; “all flesh.” Had he yet come to full understanding of the significance of the thing he himself had said?

It is very unlikely. In our previous study we left him in the house of Simon the tanner; and that in itself was an evidence of the fact that prejudice was being broken down. Prior to his coming to Christ, and his baptism of the Spirit, Peter, the Hebrew, would not have lodged in the house of Simon the tanner. The trade of the tanner was held in such supreme contempt that if a girl was betrothed to a tanner without knowing that he followed that calling, the betrothal was void. A tanner had to build his house fifty cubits outside the city. But this man Peter’s prejudices were so far broken down that he was content to lodge in the house of Simon a tanner; assuredly in the house of a man who loved Christ, a fellow-disciple.

The first outworking of prejudice was gone; and yet it was still in his heart. He still thought of Hebraism as so Divine, that its rites must be submitted to by those who were coming into the larger life from the Gentile world. It was necessary that he, and those associated with him, should discover the fact that the old economy had been swept away by fulfillment; and that now without rite, ceremonial, or ordinance of Hebraism, men might come into living relationship with Christ.

So the two men are seen; one in Csesarea, the product of the light that the Gentile had apart from Judaism; and one in Joppa, a man who had been brought up in Judaism, had been brought into relation with Christ, but had not yet come to a full understanding of the glory of the light in which he lived, of the power of the life which was throbbing through his own soul.

Let us now turn to the visions that came to these men. To Cornelius it was an open vision, a definite and actual visitation. To this man, an angel came in the hour of his meditating. That which is of supreme importance is not the presence of the angel, but what he said. In the angel’s message to this man Cornelius, there was a recognition of everything that had gone before. “Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before God.” Here the truth of a subsequent statement that “God is no respecter of persons” is made manifest. The angel came to an uncircumcized Gentile, with no part in the fleshly covenant, with no privileges within Hebraism.

It was an object lesson not only to Peter, but for all time. In the words of the angel there was a recognition of the past, no word of blame, no word that charged him with sin, but a recognition of the fact that he had been true to the light he had received. “Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before God.”

But the angel brought not only recognition, but instruction. “Send men to Joppa, and fetch one Simon, who is surnamed Peter: he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the seaside.“In the word of the angel we have a revelation of the line of Cornelius’ prayer. He shall tell thee what to do. That surely implies that Cornelius was anxious, was enquiring, that he had come to some place of perplexity in his life. It may have been he was hesitating as to whether he would become a proselyte, and enter into that religion; for he had discovered that the God of the Hebrew was a mighty God. It may have been that he also had come under the influence of Philip, and the wonderful preaching that had made its way through Samaria and Judea. It may be he was wondering whether he could enter into fellowship with that Christ Whom Philip had preached, save through Judaism.

It may be that this actual problem was in his mind which was confronting the Church. Be all that as it may, the fact remains that to this man, sincere and enquiring, the angel came, recognizing his sincerity, and indicating the line of progress.

In our return to Joppa we have an entirely new vision, no longer objective, but wholly subjective. Peter had gone to the housetop at the hour of prayer, and there is a human touch in the story; he was very hungry, and fell into a trance, into a condition of ecstasy, for that is the meaning of the word. While in that condition he saw the vision. To Cornelius an angel came; to Peter a vision was granted, while he was in a state of trance. As this Jew looked at that vision he saw a strange vessel in the form of a great canvas, filled with all kinds of animals. There would necessarily be the revulsion of the Hebrew against them. Then a voice sounded, Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” His answer rendered, “Not so, Lord,” is hardly emphatic enough. It is not distinctively Petrine.

To translate bluntly, this is what he said: “Lord, by no means!” He is the same man we knew in the Gospel, the man who said, “That be far from Thee, Lord,” “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” By no means, Lord, I have never eaten anything common or unclean. That was the Hebrew speaking. Then came this remarkable word to him, “What God hath cleansed, make not thou common.” The voice did not say, “What God hath cleansed that call not thou common”; but “make not thou common,” which is a far stronger word. The idea conveyed was that of the cleansing of all, and therefore the putting away forevermore of those ceremonial limitations which had cursed the Hebrew religion. Do not make common, do not defile by your attitude toward it, that which God hath cleansed. We are no longer to speak of animals as unclean, and put them into a place of degradation, if God has cleansed them.

We may naturally enquire if the Divine commandments regarding certain foods have been abrogated. So far as the commandments against certain forms of animal life were ceremonial, they are swept away; but so far as they were laws of health, they abide.

It should, however, be remembered that the laws of health in that land and in this may be different. The general health law of Hebraism is that of Christianity; that the body must be cared for as the property of God, and nothing be eaten or drunk which harms it, and makes it an unfit instrument of the spirit. That tabulation of clean and unclean has now passed away forever; but the law of health abides. This is what astonished Peter. He had no right to call them unclean, for they were cleansed. Something had taken place in the history of religion, that revolutionized all the habits and methods of religion. Henceforth men were not to make anything profane which God had now taken within the circle of that which is sacred.

So the two results are seen. In Csesarea there was conference between the centurion and his trusted servants, two of them household servants and one a soldier. There followed the obedience of faith, and Cornelius is seen waiting, while the men take their journey of thirty miles, tarrying perhaps for a night at Appolonias. In Joppa we see this man Peter, in his perplexity and his open-mindedness. While Peter pondered there on the housetop, the Spirit spoke to him. This was no longer a vision, nor an ecstasy.

This is one of those almost amazing declarations of this book, revealing the intimacy between those early disciples and the Holy Spirit. To this man, with all his prejudices, and his magnificent loyalty the Spirit said, “Behold, three men seek thee. But arise, and get thee down, and go with them, nothing doubting.” There was no explanation of the vision yet. Peter was now about to tread an unknown pathway, he was coming to new revelation. He was perplexed with the vision, but the solution awaited him. In order to discover the solution of this perplexing vision, he was commanded not to be afraid.

Then with the perplexing vision in his mind, and the voice of the Spirit in his soul, he heard the cry of the men outside that Eastern house, and he went down and said, " Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?” They then delivered their message, and “he called them in, and lodged them.”

This is a great picture. The house of a tanner; and inside it, the tanner himself, the apostle of Christianity, two household servants who are Gentiles, and a soldier. They all stayed together that night. The unifying Spirit, breaking down barriers, sweeping out prejudices, was at work more powerfully than those men knew. When the traveller visits Joppa to-day he is still shown the house of the tanner. There it stands, the waters lapping the shore close by. I think angels watched that house that night, with the despised tanner a fellow-disciple, the great apostle, the three Gentiles as they lodged there.

As Peter had not yet come to an understanding of his vision we postpone that consideration, confining ourselves to Cornelius, and the general values of the study. All that Cornelius was, resulted from his obedience to the light he had received. But all that was preparatory. Because he walked in the light that had come to him, he was led presently into fuller light.

The general values of this story are those of its revelation of the progress of the Divine movement, and of the mosaic of details. Every detail is part of the larger whole. Two men are thirty miles apart. They must be brought together. In order that they may meet, while Joppa is busy with its trade, and Csesarea with its great shipping interests, and will know nothing of what is going on; God within the shadows keeping watch above His own, sends the angel to Csesarea, and grants the ecstatic trance in Joppa. Thus they were brought together. Presently as the result of that meeting, the infant Church, with its lingering prejudices, will be compelled to a recognition that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile; that the Christian movement includes all who come through faith in Christ, into fellowship with Him; and before its onward march pride and prejudice must forever give way.

Acts 10:23-48 In this paragraph we have an account of the things resulting from the two visions: the vision of an angel which came to Cornelius openly; the vision of Peter, which came in the form of a trance.

The vision of Cornelius was objective, and needed no explanation, for the instructions given to the Gentile soldier were perfectly clear and definite. All that was necessary was that Cornelius should obey, and discover the issues of the revelation. That of Peter, on the other hand, was subjective, and needed interpretation. Herein then we have an account of what followed the visit of the angel in the case of Cornelius; and the interpretation of the trance, which was granted to Peter.

In the meeting between these two men, the detailed story of which is told in this passage, there was mutual value. Peter’s visit, and the message he delivered, explained to Cornelius the reason of the angel’s visit. Cornelius’ experience explained to Peter the meaning of the trance. When this Jew, who was Christian also, came into the household of Cornelius,, and saw all the things that happened there, he understood the vision that had come to him on the housetop in Joppa. We shall first consider the story, and therefrom attempt to learn the lessons.

The story may be divided into three parts. First there was the enquiry. Peter, arrived at the house of Cornelius, said, “I ask with what intent ye sent for me?” The second part of the story gives the evangel. It is found in the address which Peter commenced to deliver, for as we shall see, he did not finish it. The third part of the story deals with the enduement, as it tells of the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles.

The company who journeyed for those thirty miles from Joppa to Csesarea was composed of ten men; the three who had been sent, two household servants and a soldier; the apostle himself; and six men whom he took with him Christian Jews, who are designated as “they of the circumcision.” In the taking of these men, there is detected the anxiety of Peter, his wonder, and his perplexity. He had seen the vision; some gleam of light had broken upon his mind, and he was quite conscious that the journey toward the house of the Gentile was an entirely new movement; so he took with him six brethren, Hebrews, who were Christians.

The company waiting for them consisted of Cornelius, and his kinsmen and friends. When Peter arrived, Cornelius did him obeisance. The word “worship” there must not be misinterpreted. It simply declares that Cornelius gave him full honour, according to the custom of the East. Peter’s refusal becomes more significant when we see it was not an act of worship, but merely an act of obeisance. There was surely dawning upon him the great truth, “I myself also am a man.” In that word in which he refused the obeisance, he recognized the manhood of Cornelius.

Peter then declared in the presence of the company his difficulty in coming. He told them how contrary it was to law and tradition and custom for a Jew to enter the house of a Gentile and eat; and in that statement we see his lingering prejudice. He still described himself as a Jew, as an apostle of Jesus Christ; but he had not come to the full consciousness of what Christianity really meant, or he would never have said such a thing. Cornelius answered his enquiry by repeating the facts of the story which have been considered in our last study, of the visit of the angel to him.

Peter’s address commenced with that preliminary word: “I perceive that God is no Respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to Him.” He then proceeded to deliver his message. He began by admitting that the word which he had to declare, was a word committed to Israel, but in the parenthesis, “He is Lord of all,” he revealed the fact that he was coming, as he stood there in the midst of those circumstances so new and strange to him, to a fuller understanding of the meaning of Christianity. The word was sent to the children of Israel. The preaching of peace by Jesus Christ was to the children of Israel. But the uttering of the words, “He is Lord of all,” shows that the light was breaking upon his spirit, and he was coming to the fuller understanding of the meaning of his Master’s work; and consequently of the Church’s responsibility. In the study of these discourses of the New Testament, those of Peter, or of any of the apostles, we are always impressed with the wonderful way in which they covered the whole ground of the work of Jesus.

Mark the things that he now said. He made passing reference to the baptism of John, to the message of the forerunner and herald. He then named the Lord, by that familiar phrase Jesus of Nazareth, which set Him on the common level of everyday life. He next distinguished Him from all the men among whom he placed Him, by the remarkable declaration that God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit, and with power. He then told the story of His public ministry, “Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with Him.” He then referred to His crucifixion, “Whom also they slew, hanging Him on a tree”; and immediately as was the custom of apostolic preaching, he illuminated the Cross by the Resurrection, “Him God raised up the third day, and gave Him to be made manifest.” Again, He is “the Judge of quick and dead,” not merely the Judge Who is to sit upon a throne in some dim and distant time as the Judge of the dead; but the Judge to-day, the Criterion of conduct, the One before Whose bar men are forever standing. Finally he proclaimed the great and gracious message of the evangel, “Through His name every one that believeth on Him shall receive remission of sins.”

In the declaration of the evangel Peter was careful to emphasize the fact that it was witnessed. “We are witnesses of these things.” He used that expression twice, and around the two occasions he grouped the essential notes of the mission of Jesus. Witnesses of His life and death; of the anointed Man, the beneficent ministry, and the violent death. Witnesses of His resurrection and supremacy; the resurrection itself was so definite, that they sat and ate and drank with Him; His supremacy was revealed in the fact that He had charged them to declare His Gospel. Finally he said that to Him the whole of the prophets gave witness.

But the speech of Peter was interrupted. He was not allowed to finish. As he spoke, there fell on those assembled Gentiles the selfsame gift that the disciples had received at Pentecost. The evidence was in the gift of tongues; glad and ecstatic utterances of praise, not necessarily in different languages, for there is no reference to such. The gift of tongues is not only to be interpreted by the second chapter of the Acts, but also by the first Corinthian letter. It was the gift of praise.

Mark the words, “They heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.” The same effect was produced upon these Jewish Christians from Joppa which had been produced upon the Hebrew crowd in Jerusalem. They were amazed as they listened to the utterances of praise, to the glad words that magnified God. They heard these men with loosened tongues giving utterance to the fact of the new life which had come to them. Observe that these men received the gift of the Holy Spirit before baptism in water, without the laying on of apostolic hands. Some had received the Spirit because the apostles laid their hands on them. Some had received the gift of the Spirit after water baptism.

Here was another irregularity, and the value of this story of the Acts of the Apostles is that it is forevermore revealing the fact that “The wind bloweth where it will.” The Spirit interrupted the apostle in his discourse, falling upon the listening men and women, when they had heard enough of the message to believe into the Christ. So the Spirit fell; and they of the circumcision were amazed as they heard them magnify God.

What are the supreme lessons that this story teaches? We will confine our answer entirely to those of the enquiry and the evangel. They may be at once indicated by three points in the narrative. Peter first said, “Unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean.” That is the first lesson of value. Again, “I perceive that God is no Respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to Him.” That is the second lesson. The third lesson is that of the suggestiveness of the interrupted speech of the apostle.

In the words, “Unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean " we find the first significance of the vision, as they reveal Peter’s understanding of the meaning of the vision of the vessel let down, with all kinds of animals therein, which he was ordered to rise, and slay, and eat. In that moment the apostle came to an understanding of the truth that in the Christian economy there was to be no race superiority, and no religious superiority: “That I should call no man common or unclean.” Who was the speaker? He was first of all a man who from birth, naturally, and in some senses perhaps properly, had been proud of his race; a man who, passing away from Judaea into any other country, would everywhere, whatever other men had thought, have been in his own heart proud of his national relationship; a man who looked upon himself as of a superior race to all others. Now God had said to him that this was to be so no longer; that there is no race superiority. But the speaker was by religion originally a Hebrew; and at the moment a Christian. Yet Peter was not to consider his religion as a Jew superior to the religion of Cornelius. Peter was also to remember that his religion as a Christian gave him no right to call any man common or unclean.

How far has the Church understood this fact? How far have we learned that lesson? Has our Christianity taught us that our race relationship gives us no superiority in the world? Or do we not even yet imagine that God has a chosen people, and that people the Anglo Saxon race? It is an appalling heresy, which cuts the nerve of Christian work, which makes impossible full devotion to missionary enterprise. There is no race superiority, there are no inferior races.

But even beyond that, more astonishing, and more unbelievable, it is true that the Christian preacher or teacher must call no man common or unclean. He has no right to look with contempt upon any man because he does not share his religious doctrine or creed. To change the word “unclean,” and render the passage more literally: “God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or uncleansed.” The remarkable thing about the word “common” is that it is the root, koinos, from which we derive our rich word koinonia, fellowship. “God hath showed me that I should not call any man common.” Here is a strange and apparent contradiction. There is no finer explanation of the word than that of its use in the beginning of this book, “having all things in common.” That means the ending of all degrees, the breaking down of all castes, the coming to a realization of the unity of life. That is the true idea of the word. But Peter said, “God hath showed me that I should not call any man common.” In that statement we have an instance of the false use of the word.

The Gentile is common clay; we are a spiritual aristocracy! So the Hebrew had said for generations; and so says the Christian Church altogether too often at the present hour. The man outside is common, not within the sacred circle, shut off from privileges. Peter said God had taught him that he should call no man common, outside the circle.

How is that false conception of the meaning of the word “common,” to be corrected ? By a discovery of the fact that all men in the sight of God, for some wonderful reason occupy the same position. Let us go back to the vision. There was the vessel let down, containing all kinds of animals. Peter, commanded to slay and eat said, “Lord, by no means, I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” The answer was, “What God hath cleansed make not thou common.” In that word there was a recognition of the fact that there was a process by which the thing that was unclean had been made clean. In the infinite and mysterious and overwhelming economy of the grace of God, by the Cross of the Christ, the whole race is redeemed.

The race is not saved. The New Testament makes a clear distinction between salvation and redemption. Salvation is always referred to as following the act of faith; redemption never. Redemption is independent of faith. Upon the brow of every man there is the sign of the Cross; and on every human life there rests the sacred enduement of the mystery of sacrifice, God’s sacrifice wrought out into visibility by Calvary. This man came at that moment to the recognition of the fact that he had no race superiority, that all questions of race were swept away as by a flood, submerged in the new fact that men everywhere are redeemed, and that therefore there is no common man, in the false sense of the world.

That is the Christian outlook. Paul declared the same truth when he said, “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” By the side of that great passage we might put one of the prayers of the Talmud, which Paul had doubtless said every day for years, “Oh God, I thank Thee that I am not a Gentile, that I am not a slave, that I am not a woman.” Humanity in the sight of God stands on redemption ground; and when we perpetuate within the Church of God our race prejudices, or when we show to the world our race prejudices; and imagine that God is caring for the elect inner circle, and is careless about the vast multitudes, then we violate the first principle that this great lesson teaches.

The second lesson is but the enlargement of the one idea or one truth included within the first. Peter said, “I perceive,” and the word is one that indicates the coming to a clear comprehension. It is the very word Paul used about his conversion when Christ apprehended him. Here it is used in the realm of the mind. It indicates the sudden grasping of ideas. He had come to a new view, to a larger understanding, fresh light had broken in upon him. “I perceive that God is no Respecter of persons.” Those familiar with the Greek New Testament remember that " Respecter of persons " is one word, and that a very suggestive one.

I am not sure that it is not a playful word, with a touch of satire in it; that Peter had now come to such revelation of God’s attitude as to use the word, “I perceive that God is no Accepter-of-a-face.” Imagine a Jew saying that; the Jew who had thought that his very face was the hall-mark of Divine election. Now he said, God is no Respecter-of-a-face.

Of course it means infinitely more than that; it means all that the thought suggested to a Jew. “But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to Him.” That is not the same verb. It is a stronger one; carrying with it the idea of closer relationship with men everywhere, who walk in the light they possess. Men that fear Him, work righteousness. The apostle did not mean to say that man is received upon the basis of his morality. God has cleansed, and God’s reception of the race is based upon the passion of God, as wrought out in the Cross, according to this great evangel. But no man is to be saved because he understands the doctrine of the Atonement.

He is saved, not by understanding it, but because he fears God, and works righteousness. Oh, the glad and glorious surprise of those ultimate days when we find that there will be those who walked in the light they had, and wrought righteousness, and were acceptable to Him; not because of their morality, but by the infinite merit of the Cross, and by the fact that they yielded themselves to the light they possessed.

The sin of the Gentile is not that he does not believe the thing of which he never heard. It is that he holds down the truth which he knows, in unrighteousness. This was the great advance for Peter. He had not quite cut loose from the old prejudices. Paul had to withstand him one day a little later on. This story is not merely the story of the emancipation of a man, it is light for the Christian Church to the end of time.

Finally in chapter eleven, Peter in telling the story in Jerusalem, of this visit to Cornelius, said, “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them (Acts 11:15).” One can imagine when Peter reached this point, that he had but laid down the lines of his address and indicated the outstanding facts, and that he was intending to elaborate them; but his was an interrupted speech. But it was yet a complete speech; complete in its matter, for it spoke of Christ only, fully, and clearly. It was complete in its method. It was a message delivered in obedience to the instruction of the Spirit, for the Spirit had said, “Go with these men, nothing doubting.” It was a message delivered by a witness, one who in his own life knew of the power of the things he spoke. It was a message accompanied by the Spirit, and at the very moment when the things of Christ had been presented by this Spirit-filled man to the multitude, the work was done.

To read that address and note its interruption, and the sudden falling of the Spirit upon its hearers is to be rebuked. We labour so hard to make the Gospel plain. We so constantly imagine that it is necessary for us not to preach Christ only, but to defend Christ, and vindicate Christ, and explain Christ. We leave so little room in our preaching and teaching for this cooperative ministry of the Holy Spirit. It is a great and sacred ministry to speak only and briefly of the ministry of the Christ. As we do so the Spirit Himself will carry the message, fall upon the multitudes; and the work of bringing men into fullness of life be accomplished.