The narrative of Acts develops incrementally. The progression of the theme that the Gospel is going to all nations and not limited to just the Jerusalem context. Peter’s encounter with Cornelius in Acts 10 begins the unfolding of the progression of the narrative towards the inclusion of Gentiles. Acts 10 and 11 develops the validation of Gentile conversions, thereby opening the Gospels engagement in the Gentile mission. The validation of Gentile conversions comes as a post-script to the Hellenists Christians moving into Samaria and Judea. Acts account of Peter’s vision appears as the Spirit authorizing the establishment and the credibility of a mission to the Gentiles.[1] The text is meticulously detailed about the event validating Gentile conversions. The details note almost every aspect of the event in order to add validity to ethnic barrier breaking practices and strategies that have transpired already in the narrative of Acts.[2] What comes into view is a critical moment in the narrative for the movement of the Gospel from the Judaic cultural context into the Gentile socio-cultural context.
This
critical movement views two conversions, first, Cornelius and his household
representing the Gentiles and second, a theological conversion of Peter as the
representative of the Hebrew Christian church.[3]
This event represents a paradigm shift in the reality perceived by the Hebrew
church represented in Jerusalem. In Acts 11:1-18, Peter is called to give an
account for his actions before what appears to be the council of Apostles and
elders in Jerusalem. The questions indicate the council had certain expectation
concerning engaging Gentiles. These expectations appear to be fully in line
with Judaic conventional wisdom and proselytizing. Wright elaborates an
approximation of Peter’s understanding before this event, he expounds,
Peter knew that Jews who
wanted to belong to the new movement had had to repent of sin (Acts 2.38). Up
to now, he would have said that Gentiles, if they wanted to belong, would have
had to become Jews as well. But the point which is being made in this graphic
and deeply human story (complete with Cornelius’ understandable and
over-enthusiastic faux pas of falling down and worshipping Peter, and Peter
telling him quickly to get up) is that, though Gentiles too had to repent and
believe in Jesus just as Jews did, they did not have to become Jews before or
after that process.[4]
Those gathered together in the council, who cross examined
Peter’s experience, appear to make the assumption that in order to proselyte
Gentile certain conditions of conversion were essential. The Gentiles were
expected to make a conversion to “Judaism” and then to receive “baptism
alongside circumcision to signify conversion.”[5]
The event of Gentiles receiving the baptism of the Spirit without circumcision
challenged the assumptions of the Jerusalem council of Christians, Keener
explains, “. . . if God had Baptized someone in his Spirit, he had certainly
accepted their conversion – with or without circumcision.”[6]
The assumption that Gentiles had to convert to Judaism in order to be saved has
it foundation thoroughly removed.
Peter is found in the center of this controversy and
must present a valid argument in support of this new practice and strategy of
acceptance of Gentile conversions without circumcision and proselytism. The
paradigm shift in the narrative of Acts challenges the assumptions of the
Apostles and the Jerusalem church, thereby it “spotlights the theme of God’s
plan to bring salvation in its fullness to all people, both Jew and Gentile.”[7]
This perturbed the orthodoxies of the Jerusalem Christian community or at least
the hard line Jewish Christians (Judiazers) who formed the party of the
circumcision.
It appears the Jewish hard liners considered
themselves the major stakeholders in the new movement, now they face an
undesirable, yet inevitable outcome, the inclusion of the Gentiles without
circumcision and the Law of Moses. The council finds itself in the
uncomfortable position of confirming that salvation had indeed been extended to
the Gentiles through the witness of the Holy Spirit being poured out upon them.
This event provides the critical mass needed, in the form of cultural clout
with power to extend the Gospel, by allowing the Gentile mission to continue
without the necessity of Jewish conversion and circumcision. In human
perspective it is an unintentional contextualization of the Gospel, but the
divine witness of the Spirit indicates it is within God’s intentions that
Gospel spread amid the Gentiles. Flemming asserts that contextualization of the
Gospel to a Gentile context is the aim of Luke-Acts, he explains,
Luke-Acts attempts to
explain and defend God’s saving project to Hellenized Christians in a way that
would speak to their needs and thought world. . . . Acts could also provide the
Gentile church with theological legitimacy by proclaiming that, in spite of
Jewish rejection of the gospel, it stands in continuity with Israel and the
ministry of Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s plan promised in Scripture. In
important ways, then, Acts is an intercultural document. It transposes a story
that is grounded in the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the Jewish identity of
Jesus and the early Jerusalem church, into a Greco-Roman cultural setting.”[8]
The barrier that existed between the Jews and Gentiles has
been removed. The implication is that an empowered contextualization with a new
theological praxis is transpiring through the intervention of God. The
exclusion of other ethos/people groups has lost its defense through the
intervention of God’s Spirit baptizing the Gentiles with the Holy Spirit. This
is no less than a validation of Jesus’ positive deviance practices and
strategies. This presents a challenge to any and all exclusivity claims by any ethnicity.
This paradigm shift opens the way for practices and
strategies that are deviant to the long held Judaic traditions regarding
inclusion of Gentiles within Israel. Peter’s leadership in the matter affirms
one of the basic premises of Positive Deviance leadership. He accomplishes this
through his address of the Council where he effectively reframes the Jew
Gentile relationship within the new covenant. Pascale explains, “Leadership begins
with reframing the challenge in a compelling way so as to engage others in
generating an alternative future.”[9] This paradigm shift allowed for an
alternative future by creating an inclusive environment allowing the Gentiles
to enter into salvation without unnecessary constraints and expectations.
Wright comments about this progression, “. . . the message has now reached out
to embrace not only Gentiles but Romans. From here, it may be a long step
geographically but it’s only a short step culturally to everywhere else in the
then known world.”[10]
The bridge is in place and the Hellenist Christians would use it in their
practices and strategies. The Gentile mission would begin in and flourish Antioch.
[1] Wright,
Acts for Everyone, Part One, 169.
[2] Johnson
and Harrington, The Acts of the Apostles, 187.
[3] Flemming, 36.lemming, Contextualization in
the New Testament, 36.
[4] Wright, 164–165.right,
Acts for Everyone, Part One, 164–165.
[5] Keener and Press, The IVP Bible
Background Commentary, Acts 11:16–17.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Flemming, 29.lemming, Contextualization in
the New Testament, 29.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Pascale
et al., The Power of Positive Deviance, 193.
[10] Wright,
Acts for Everyone, Part One, 167.
No comments:
Post a Comment