8
"For what intent have you sent for me?" - Can we imagine a missionary in China, India or anywhere else on the
broad earth, asking such a question, or asking this question in similar circumstances? Any Mission Board would ask
such a missionary to resign his post, and rightly so. No! every item in this tenth chapter is eloquent of the fact that
Peter had no commission to the Gentiles.
At last Peter "began to speak" (Acts 11:15). Let us listen to the message he gives to this Gentile audience:
" ... Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons (first admission): but in every nation he that feareth
Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him (second admission). The word which God sent unto the
children of Israel (note, not as Paul in Acts 13:26), preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (He is Lord of all:) (third
admission) ... published throughout all Judaea ... in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem ... preach unto the
people (i.e. the people of Israel) ... whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:34-43).
One cannot but be struck with the attitude of Peter. He does not preach directly to the Gentile audience, he
rehearses in their hearing the word which God sent to Israel, saying nothing of a purely gospel character until the
very end.
But for the further intervention of God we cannot tell how long Peter would have continued in this way. It is
doubtful whether he would have got so far as inviting Cornelius and his fellows to be baptized, as his own words
indicate:
"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as
we?" (Acts 10:47).
The upshot of this work at Caesarea was that even Peter was called upon to give an account of himself:
"The apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And
when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou
wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them" (Acts 11:1-3).
We find no remonstrance from Peter to the effect that seeing that the Church began at Pentecost, the conversion
of Cornelius should have been anticipated and be a matter for rejoicing. No, Peter patiently, and humbly, and
apologizingly, rehearsed the matter, even to the pathetic conclusion: "What was I, that I could withstand God?"
(Acts 11:17). Why should Peter ever think of withstanding God, if he knew that the Church began at Pentecost? It
is abundantly evident that neither Peter, the other apostles, nor the brethren at Jerusalem had the remotest idea of any
such thing:
"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying,
hath God ALSO to the
THEN
Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18).
We learn from Acts 15 that the response of Peter to the call of Cornelius played a considerable part in stopping
the extremists at Jerusalem in their attempt to shackle the Church of the Gentiles, and proved to be a preparation for
the great ministry of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. In this we rejoice, and see how the purpose of grace
gradually unfolds as the narrative proceeds.
We commend this study to the reader, and ask him particularly to weigh the words of Pentecost: "All things
common" with the words of Peter: "Common and unclean", and their bearing upon the question: Did "the Church"
begin at Pentecost?