Commentary on Acts 10:34-43

It is an interesting challenge to preach on a passage from Scripture that itself functions as a sermon. In these verses, the apostle Peter delivers a compelling speech to God-fearer Cornelius and his household, concisely outlining the Christian message about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. When presented with such an accomplished address, it is easy for the preacher to feel somewhat on the back foot, uncertain about how to do justice to the biblical text.

Surprisingly, however, such a feeling might put us in the good company of Peter himself. The opening words of his speech are usually rendered in English as “I truly understand,” a phrase that could function to underline the strength and surety of Peter’s conviction regarding the God who shows no partiality.

However, the Greek word used here (the verb katalambanō) can also be translated “to catch up with something,” “to make something one’s own,” and “to grasp something through a process of enquiry.”¹ These variants allow Peter’s words to stretch beyond the immediate context of his speech, and to point toward a process of realization: What has just now been understood was once (perhaps only a short time ago) out of reach. Peter has only just caught hold of the message he is about to share with others.

The statement that “God shows no partiality” is not entirely new. Indeed, from the very start of the biblical narrative, God is shown to be creator and Lord of all, and there are several places in the Old Testament where his lack of partiality is noted and praised (for example, Deuteronomy 10:17–18; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Job 34:19).

This idea can also be found at earlier points in the Acts narrative, such as the account of the baptism of the Ethiopian court official (Acts 8:26–40)—not to mention Peter’s own earlier speech at the first Christian Pentecost, in which precisely this outpouring of the Spirit upon “all flesh” is named (Acts 2:17). Peter has already preached this message, therefore, but is only now coming to understand the implications of his earlier words.

The immediate narrative context for this development is the account of Cornelius’s and Peter’s visionary experiences (10:1–8 and 10:9–16), followed by the conversation and journey Peter shares with the men sent by Cornelius (10:17–23). In his vision, Peter is commanded three times to “kill and eat” from a mixed group of clean and unclean animals. Appalled by this challenge to his long-held views, Peter refuses to follow the apparently taboo instructions that he receives. He is left in a state of confusion, unable to make sense of what he has seen and heard.

The experience is immediately followed by the arrival of the men sent by Cornelius. While it would hardly be plausible to suggest that this is Peter’s first encounter with Gentiles, his assertion, “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile” (10:28), hints at a closer engagement with Gentiles than he had previously experienced. The group lodge together in Simon’s house before journeying on to Caesarea, and it is perhaps through this shared hospitality that Peter’s attitude begins to shift.

Instead of functioning as a label for a group of “others” to be kept at arm’s length, “the Gentiles” become individuals with names and faces, fellow guests and companions on the journey. Peter’s attitude toward the Gentiles changes as he travels (literally and symbolically) with Gentiles.

And thus, we arrive again at Peter’s language in Acts 10:34 and the renewed grasp of what God’s impartiality really means: something that extends beyond the boundaries of the people of Israel (rich or poor, high or low status) to incorporate those “in every nation” (10:35). God’s lack of favoritism signals nothing less than the inclusion of the Gentiles.

The speech that follows highlights the way in which Peter’s understanding has evolved, yet it also clearly roots the story of Jesus in its Jewish context. God’s message was sent to the people of Israel (10:36), and Jesus’s ministry is located in Judea, Nazareth, Galilee, and Jerusalem (10:37–39). These specifics are not changed or erased by the inclusion of the Gentiles. Peter’s proclamation is not one of abstract universalism.

The momentousness of Peter’s realization can be lost in too glib a rendition of this message. The story of the God of Israel who shows no favoritism captures something of the complexity of Christian language of inclusion. In his commentary on the passage, Willie James Jennings writes as follows:

This moment schools us in divine transgression. God brings Peter to one outside of the covenant, transgressing God’s own established boundary and border. We must not weaken the radical implications of this epic meeting. This meeting has yet to gain its proper place in the historical consciousness of the church because the actions of God here are taken for granted. God’s actions here have been imagined by so many Christians through a mangled vision of providence that conceals the real God behind a strange universal god.²

Peter’s statement—at once a bold proclamation of a familiar faith and an acknowledgment of the transformation of his own understanding—is an invitation for individuals and congregations to think again. When faced with complex theological or ethical questions and new experiences, it can be tempting to seek comfort in the familiar and to cling to long-held convictions. Yet we ought not to mistake rigidity for steadfastness.

Declarations of God’s impartiality may roll easily enough off the tongue (“all are welcome in this place”), but we might also ask ourselves if there are contexts—including the context of our own church congregation/community—where we have yet to “catch up” with the implications of such words.

Notes

1. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 519–520.
2. Willie James Jennings, Acts (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2017), 110.