 |  |
"The apostles and brethren that were in Judea 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?" or literally "forbid
God?" Why should Peter ever think of withstanding God or "forbidding" 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,
THEN HATH GOD ALSO to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11: 18).
As the testimony stands, much clearer and complete evidence must be brought before
we can feel justified in believing that there is any ground whatever to indicate that "Paul
was neither in prison nor in bonds during the time covered by Acts 28: 30, 31".
How de we understand the word "GENTILE"?
It has been suggested that the word ethnos, translated Gentile, refers in many instances
to the dispersed of Israel, who had so long lived among the heathen as to have become in
the eyes of their more orthodox fellows "uncircumcision" and "aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel", terms that we have generally accepted as a description of the
Gentiles before their conversion. As this new interpretation impinges upon the teaching
of Ephesians and does not allow the normal meaning of the word Gentile to appear until
Eph. 3:, no one can object if this interpretation be suspect; or that it should be subjected
to criticism, so long as the enquiry be conducted in the interests of Truth and with
Christian courtesy.
The treatise we have in mind provides a concordance of all the references to ethnos in
the N.T. from which we extract the following from the Acts of the Apostles: Acts 2: 5;
4: 25; 7: 7, 45; 11: 1, 18; 13: 19, 46, 47. Acts 2: 5 speaks of the nations among
which the "Jews" who came to Pentecost lived. Some of them, namely Parthians, Medes
and Elamites (Acts 2: 9-11) are undoubtedly Gentiles in the accepted sense. Acts 4: 25
quotes from Psa. 2:, "why did the heathen rage?" and in verse 27 these "heathen" or
"Gentiles" are differentiated from Israel, and linked with Herod and Pontius Pilate.
Acts 7: 7 uses the word ethnos to indicate the Egyptians and 7: 45 like 13: 19 refer
to the "Canaanites" as indicated in Gen. 15: 19-21.
Acts 10: 1 and 18 refers to
Cornelius who was a centurion of the Italian band, and called by Peter "one of another
nation" (Acts 10: 28).
The word Peter employed is allophulos, and is found in the Septuagint of Isa. 2: 6;
and 61: 5 as well as six times in Judges as the equivalent of Philistine. It is impossible,
therefore, to believe that the acknowledgment of Acts 11: 18 "then hath God also to the
Gentiles granted repentance unto life" can refer to Gentiles as such, but that similar