Acts 11 - Introduction

Excursus.

On the Two Accounts of the Conversion of Cornelius.

In the Acts of the Apostles there are two accounts of the conversion of Cornelius, one given by St. Luke in the due sequence of his narrative, the other by St. Peter himself, under apologetic conditions, before the ‘apostles and elders' at Jerusalem. On this circumstance Bishop Wordsworth has the following observation: ‘A remarkable instance of repetition, showing the importance of the subject; and that the Holy Spirit does not disdain to use the same or similar words in relating the same events' (The New Testament in the Original Greek, with Notes; The Acts, p. 93). Turning now to a writer of a very different spirit, we find Reuss commenting on this fact as follows: ‘La reproduction du recit detaille de la conversion du centurion palen s'explique par les usages du style populaire de l'antiquité: L'Ancien Testament offre de nom-breux exemples de cette prolixité' (Histoire Apostolique, p. 131). There is truth, doubtless, in both these criticisms: and they are not necessarily inconsistent with one another. But if we were to content ourselves with either of them or both of them, we should lose part of the instruction of this book of Holy Scripture, and should sacrifice an evidential argument of considerable value. It is probably good for our edification that we should gain our full impression of the whole history of this remarkable event by a thoughtful comparison of the two accounts which are given of it, while from such comparison there come to view strong proofs of the artless simplicity, the naturalness and perfect truthfulness of the whole story.

The method of the Horæ Paulina is in fact applicable, not merely to the comparison of one class of documents with another, with the view of proving the honesty of both by exhibiting minute consistency without contrivance, but likewise to the comparative criticism of different parts of the same document, by showing that ‘undesigned coincidences' link them together, and thus give to them the coherency of truth. Paley himself applies this mode of reasoning to the Epistle to the Philippians, in the matter of Epaphroditus, without any comparison with the Acts of the Apostles. The parts of this, book of the Acts which lend themselves with the greatest facility to this method of treatment, and do, in fact, most obviously invite it, as they most richly reward it, are the three accounts of St. Paul's conversion. That subject will be treated in an Excursus in its proper place. Two of St. Paul's accounts were given under apologetic conditions: and so far there is a resemblance between his case and that of St. Peter. The materials for comparison, in St. Paul's case, are indeed much more abundant, especially as it presents three aspects of the same story; but in the instance before us, we have something more than the narrative of St. Luke, which we can put side by side with that of St. Peter. We have also to deal with the statement made to Peter by the messengers of Cornelius, and the statement made by Cornelius himself to that apostle. It is worth while to glance at these two other features which diversify the history, before we turn to the broader comparison.

The angel had given to Cornelius an exact description of the apostle, furnishing both his name and surname, and the name and employment of his host, and the exact position of the house (Acts 10:5-6). We find the messengers, on arriving in Joppa, making their inquiries exactly in this form (Acts 10:17; Acts 10:19). This was quite natural, while yet it is told in the most artless and easy manner. When they give their message to Peter, they describe the character of Cornelius in such a way as to win confidence and to produce persuasion; and especially they note the respect in which he was held by the Jews. This is just what we should expect from discreet men, such as Cornelius would select for such an errand (see Acts 11:7-8); and it is just what St. Paul did when he described to his infuriated hearers in the temple court the character of Ananias at Damascus, and the high esteem in which he was held in that place (Acts 22:12). When Peter came to Cæsarea and asked for fuller information from Cornelius himself, the centurion described the appearance of his heavenly visitant, and said that he ‘stood' before him ‘within his house' (Acts 10:30). These particulars we should not otherwise have known; and they were evidently adapted to convince Peter that there had been no illusion. Another point which the direct narrative does not contain is, that Cornelius was praying when the angel visited him. This circumstance was obviously of great moment for producing confidence in the apostle's mind. And once more the exact description of the apostle, with his name and surname, and the name of his host, and the position of the house, is repeated (Acts 10:32). Such coincidences are like threads, not perceptible at first sight, but perceived on closer examination to give coherence and strength to the whole texture of the narrative; and yet hardly any critic would venture to say that they have been ingeniously inserted for the purpose of producing this effect on the mind of the reader.

Similar remarks might be made on the manner in which St. Peter speaks to Cornelius when he first meets him, on his dignified reticence as regards the particulars of his trance, and on the candour with which he confesses, in general terms, that God had taught him to take a new view of the relations between Jews and Gentiles. But the chief point of interest in this comparative criticism lies in the variations observable when we set St. Peter's apologetic statement at Jerusalem (Acts 11:4-17) side by side with the direct narrative contained in the preceding chapter. The problem he has now to solve is, how to present his recent experience persuasively and yet truthfully. We are perhaps hardly to expect in this apostle the tact and versatility which were characteristic of St. Paul. It is enough, if we find him earnest, judicious, and natural, and if his mode of putting the case suits the conditions of the moment. Now he is careful to give to the whole history its solemn religious aspect, omitting mere details, which are of no moment for his argument, though they are interesting and indeed important parts of the narrative, considered as a mere narrative. Expounding the matter ‘by order from the beginning,' he says that he was praying when the trance occurred (Acts 11:5), that the voice which spake to him came ‘from heaven' (Acts 11:9). He marks the providential coincidence of the arrival of the three men at the critical moment, and the distinct command of the Holy Spirit, that he should go with them (Acts 11:11-12). He speaks emphatically of ‘the angel' (Acts 11:13). He states that the phenomena which followed were similar to those at Pentecost (Acts 11:15); he describes the recollection of the words of the Lord Jesus which came over him (Acts 11:16), and he concludes by saying that God had given to the faith of these Gentiles what He had given to the faith of the earliest Hebrew Christians, and that to withhold obedience in this matter would be a presumptuous hindrance of God (Acts 11:17). The work was God's work, not his. This is his main argument, but it is worth while also to note what he adds and what he omits in his recital. He adds that the great sheet, with its strange contents, moved towards him and came close to him (Acts 11:5), and moreover that he ‘fastened his eyes on it and considered it' (Acts 11:6). Such things tended to prove the reality and definiteness of the Divine communication. He omits the mention of the housetop, the hour of the day, the preparation of his meal. These were merely, from his present point of view, circumstantial details, however valuable they might be for the historian. And finally, we have once again, from St. Peter's own lips, the exact designation, which we have met with three times before at the critical points of this narrative: ‘Simon, whose surname is Peter.' In this was expressed, not only a new proof of the literal truth of the facts, but his sense of an individual calling and a personal responsibility for the accomplishment of this great task of introducing the Gentiles, on equal terms with the Jews, into the Christian Church. His speech on this occasion, besides being of value to the end for which it has here been examined, furnishes to us an instructive example of that which is enjoined by his brother apostle, ‘Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man' (Colossians 4:6).