Cornelius is described as “devout and God-Fearing.” “Devout” (εὐσεβής, 10:2) is a word that indicates someone is devoted to a particular religion or god; a person who is “profoundly reverent” (BDAG). The word is used in Second Temple period literature to describe a godly man who is reverent to the God of Israel. Cornelius is therefore the most likely candidate for a Gentile conversion to the followers of Jesus. If the movement has been from the Temple in Jerusalem outward to the fringes of Judaism, the Cornelius would be at the very edge of what makes one part of the people of God.
The description of Cornelius as a God-Fearer (φοβούμενος τὸν θεὸν) may mean he was a Gentiles who were near-converts to Judaism. When Luke used the term “God-fearer” he likely has in mind Gentiles who worshiped God in the Synagogue without taking on all the Jewish boundary markers. Julius Scott provides the more or less standard definition of a God-Fearer: “an unofficial class of Gentiles who stopped short of becoming full proselytes but were permitted limited participation in Jewish worship” (JETS 34 [1991]: 478). The key word here is “unofficial.” There was no recognized class of Gentile “near converts” in the first century, although it is likely that most synagogues had one or two of these God-Fearing Gentiles.
This consensus view was challenged in 1981 by A. T. Kraabel. He examines the archaeological evidence from synagogues available at that point in time and concludes that there was not a class of Gentiles worshiping alongside Jews in Diaspora synagogues. For example, after examining 100 synagogue inscriptions, not one of them mentioned God-fearers, although the term theosebos appears with a Jewish name on ten occasions (116). Based on his reading of the archaeological evidence, Luke created this class of “near convert” for theological reasons. “It is a tribute to Luke’s dramatic ability that they have become so alive for the later Church, but the evidence from Paul’s own letters and now from archaeology makes their historicity questionable in the extreme” (120).
But it is likely that evidence for God-Fearing Gentiles can be found in the Synagogue inscription from Aphrodisias. This inscription was published in the mid-1960s, this register dates to the third century and lists Jews (with Hebrew names) and God-worshipers (with Greek names, none have Jewish names) in separate columns. Furthermore, the Roman satirist Juvenal mocked Gentiles who kept Jewish food laws as“Sabbath-fearing” (Sat. 14.96-106). Kraabel’s evidence does not include very many Synagogue inscriptions from the first century, in fact, there is only one in his list (in Delos). This is not surprising since there few first century Diaspora synagogues have been excavated.
In short, there is Kraabel is right to warn scholarship away from thinking that there a large percentage of synagogue members were God-Fearing Gentiles. He is right, that this was not a technical term or official class, as it sometimes appears in popular descriptions of Second Temple Period synagogues. Yet he goes to far by suggesting that there were no Gentiles who worshiped in Diaspora synagogues. Likely there were God-Fearing women in most Synagogues, perhaps fewer men. These Gentiles may be a primary reason why Paul began ministry in a new town by preaching in the Synagogue that the Gentiles can be right with God apart from Law.
The question remains, for Luke, on which side of the Jew / Gentile line is Cornelius? From a Jewish perspective, would b e be considered “right with God,” despite not submitting to circumcision? Or, is this story a kind of “Pentecost” for the Gentiles? Is it possible that the conversion of Cornelius the farthest away from the Temple one can be yet still be a part of the People of God?
Bibliography: A. T. Kraabel, “The Disappearance Of The ‘God-Fearers’” Numen 28 (1981):113-126.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 17, 2013 at 10:36 pm
arenberg93
I always thought that being a God fearing person was simply a compliment on your reverent attitude in regards to God. And yet in this passage it implies so much more. Was the centurion from Caesarea a Jew or a Gentile? and is it possible to find out from the phrase “God fearing?” My take from this phrase was that Cornelius was a Gentile. My main reasoning is that Jews were supposed to be God fearing. Every single Jew that worshiped in the temple were supposed to know of the majesty of God, and give him reverent fear. If every single Jew was a God fearing person, why use it as an adjective for one Jew? I believe that this was a description for a Gentile because it was not all to common for someone of now Jewish blood to worship the one true God. As for him being viewed as being “right with God” I’m not exactly sure. There were different sects of Judaism that wanted to be more lenient with the law, and more inviting, while some wanted to be stricter with the law. So many opinions differed at this time in regards to the uncircumcised being right with God. But regardless of what the Jews thought at the time, Cornelius definitely was right with God as he received a message from Him as did the prophets and disciples of the day. He also showed his devotion to the speed and caliber that he fulfilled the instructions of the Angel. I’m not sure that there is anyway that we can truly know the ethnicity of Cornelius, or his status in regards to the law, but we know that his heart was in the right place, and that he allowed God to use him for his glory.
February 18, 2013 at 9:12 am
nick_mascorro
I agree similar to what the post says about Cornelius, referencing that he was a, “Gentile who worshipped God in the Synagogue without taking on all the Jewish boundary markers.” I think that this describes Cornelius most adequately because he is described as a devout man, not a Jew, which could mean that he was a man of God but may have been a Gentile. I personally believe that Cornelius was on the Gentile side because Luke does not mention him specifically as a Jew. Which he commonly does with other characters in Acts, possibly implying that he was a Gentile but definitely implying that he was a devote Christian. Though he was a devote Christian and God fearing man (Acts 10:2) that does not necessarily validate him through the eyes of the Jew at this time. This is because as we have previously learned the Jews that were in power were mainly Hebraic Jews that upheld the traditions of the their forefathers which included circumcision. However the Hellenistic Jew would have been more accepting of an uncircumcised man because of their more lenient beliefs. Though the Jews may have not accepted him as “Right with God,” I do not think that this delegitimizes his standing with God. This is because it is clear that God has his hand on Cornelius’s life because he is speaking to him and acknowledges his prayers (Acts 10:4). So though Cornelius may have been considered “Wrong with God” by the Jews standard, I think that this is just another example of God using and pouring the power of the Holy Spirit on people that were unexpected.
February 18, 2013 at 7:24 pm
Hilary Rolff
I believe that this story is kind of a “Pentecost” for the Gentiles. We see in Acts 10:44 the Holy Spirit falling on the Gentiles, just as it did in Acts 2. We know that there was a visual proof of the Holy Spirit in them because of their “speaking in tongues and extolling God” like in Acts 2, “and divided tongues as of fires appearing to them …began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These gentiles now had a “genuine saving faith in Christ and received the new covenant power and fullness of the Holy Spirit” (ESV notes 10:44) just like the Jews received earlier in Acts 2. There is also a mirroring in Peters command to baptize those who have received the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10, “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” and in Acts 2, at the end of Peter’s speech, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ”.
It is also important to note that in both circumstances there are witnesses to those receiving the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2, “For these people are not drunk, as you suppose.” Peter addresses a crowd in verse 15 that obviously did not receive the Holy Spirit because they believe those who had, were drunk. In Acts 10, the witnesses are the circumcised believers because “they were amazed.” These are two different examples in Acts were an entire party receives the Holy Spirit but those who witness have two very different responses.
February 18, 2013 at 9:43 pm
John Caprari
The Cornelius/Peter story is very interesting. It’s intriguing that Peter was the one who received this vision which implies Gentile/Jew equality. I imagine that Peter got this vision because of his position. This message to the Jews is very big. It changes everything. So it’s probably better that a Jew who is a leader in the church would receive it. But at the same time it’s interesting that the man (Paul) who is to be a light to the Gentiles doesn’t receive this vision. As for Cornelius, there is debate concerning his ethnicity because of how close to a Jewish lifestyle. But according to Acts 10 it seems clear that he was a Gentile. “Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man input or unclean” (Acts 10:27-28). It seems like there would be no reason that Peter, a Jew, would say that to Cornelius if he hadn’t been a Gentile.
February 18, 2013 at 9:57 pm
steveroemer
I would have to say that Cornelius would be on the Gentile side. Although he does many great things for people, he is an uncircumcised man. From a Jewish perspective, he would not be considered “right with God”. I think this is a great example of the Gentiles becoming believers without following the whole law. Acts 10:44-48. I think it is funny that they include verse 45, “The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.” It’s kind of a funny statement.
February 18, 2013 at 10:00 pm
heatherjoyy
I agree with Hilary’s thought. After reading this post, I was confused and wondered how Kreebal’s thoughs applied to Cornelious’ encounter with God. After reading the text in its full context, I believe that this story also relates more towards a “pentecostal event” for the Gentiles (10:44-25) You mentioned that “near-converts” were Gentiles who worshipped God in the Synagogue “without taking on all the Jewish boundary marks.” When Cornelious hears the Good News from Peter (10:34-43) is Cornelious a “true believer” after hearing this or a “near-convert?”
February 19, 2013 at 12:42 am
Zac_Schutte
I would have to agree with all these posts in that I believe Cornelius was also on the Gentile side in this passage. As Mr. Renberg said, “If every single Jew was a God-fearing person, why use it as an adjective for one Jew.” Nowhere in this passage does it talk about Cornelius frequenting the synagogue or interacting directly with Jews. In fact, I believe that Jews probably disliked Cornelius more than they respected him. Being a Roman officer, it is hard to believe that Jewish leaders would appreciate an uncircumcised Gentile, let alone a Roman soldier, to frequent their place of worship.
This definitely seems like a “Pentecost” for the Gentiles. Much like the first Pentecost, the Gentiles are gathered in a room, listening to Peter preach (10:24-38). Then, in 10:45, it says that the, “circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.” This pouring out of the Holy Spirit also lead to the Gentiles speaking in tongues and praising God (10:46). These things point to a Gentile Pentecost, as well as the first occurrence of a mass Gentile conversion.
February 19, 2013 at 4:01 pm
cameronlowe5
When I have read this passage in the past and even for this class I thought that God-Fearing man was just a descriptive word given to those who were not apart of the Jewish community. It is cool to see that it actually has a lot more weight to it that I originally thought. This dose then, as Hillary points out, help in the classification of whether or not he is a Jew or a Gentile, I think that he is in fact a Gentile. Not only is this complement or label of sorts helpful in that decision making but he also has a predominately Greek name, but the name alone doesn’t help solidify this idea of him being a Gentile. That kind of name could have been given to someone who was a Hellenistic Jew, but I think that “God-Fearing” is what solidifies, in my mind, the idea of Cornelius being a Greek who had a true devotion to the God of the Israelites. If he was a Jew who was devout I think that there would have been more of a Mosaic Law term used, something to do with the law itself, dot just a word that means devout or devoted. I do think that to the Jews he was someone who might have been welcomed but put in the back of the room like we discussed in class. I also think that this story could be the start of the “Pentecost” of the Gentiles. I don’t think that we could definitively say that it is such a thing but I do see elements of the start of the graphing in of the Gentiles to the Jewish community. Paul talks about this grafting in of the Gentiles in Romans 11:17 “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree.” I think that Luke was starting the telling of this story, I think that that is the importance of this story and it has started the ministry we are living in now.