A Case for Full Inclusion - Reflections on Acts 11:1-18, Easter 5, Year C

by John C. Holbert on Friday, March 28, 2025

          Any reader of the Acts of the Apostles should be aware of the crucial nature of the shape of Luke’s narrative text. Beginning with the grand initial sermon of Peter, former denier of Jesus, now become a veritable lion for that same Jesus (Acts 2), Luke leads us on a journey that describes the miraculous growth of the early church, mainly through the tireless work of Peter and Paul, both guided by the Holy Spirit, who for Luke is the divine force that makes all things possible. At the very heart of the tale, Luke addresses the central problem and important solution to that problem that confronts the emerging communities: are Gentiles welcome to participate fully without the need to become Jewish converts first? If all must become Jews before joining the new religious community of Jesus Messiah, the rapid growth of those communities will be necessarily severely curtailed. Circumcision, food laws, and other long-held Jewish requirements will serve for many as real impediments against becoming followers of Jesus.

         Luke builds his narrative case carefully. Peter first receives a vision of a mass of unclean animals, carried in a sheet from heaven, and is urged by a voice to “kill and eat.” As an observant Jew, Peter quickly demurs: “Not at all, Lord! I have never eaten anything common or unclean” (Acts 10:14). The voice rejects that claim directly: “Things God has cleansed, you stop making common” (Acts 10:15). In other words, if creatures come from God, they are automatically clean; it is only human decision that makes them common/unclean. Peter is then called to the household of the Roman Cornelius, where he witnesses clearly the gift of the Holy Spirit on all of the Gentiles assembled. Still, these events are only experiences had by Peter alone.

         Acts 11 ups the ante of the inclusive witness of God. Peter leaves Caesarea and comes to Jerusalem, the very center of the Jesus community. Acts 11:1 makes it plain that the “apostles and brothers who were throughout Judea” had heard of the baptism and conversion of Cornelius,” but had no problem with that fact. However, “those who were from the circumcision criticized him” (Acts 11:2). There is irony here. The verb “criticize” may also be translated “debate/doubt,” and was used at Acts 10:20 to warn Peter against “debating” with the Gentiles. Now the circumcision party in Jerusalem is precisely arguing with Peter using the same verb! Circumcision is central for them to the reality of their Judaism, along with the crucial fact of table fellowship. “You went in with people who were uncircumcised, and you ate with them” (Acts 11:3). Though it was not stated directly that Peter, in fact, ate with the Gentiles in Caesarea, the length of his stay with Cornelius makes the sharing of meals more than likely. 

         Peter’s defense of his actions includes a repetition of what we have already read about his experiences in the previous chapter. This is far from a clumsy repetition of what we already know; it is instead a careful building up of the crucial significance of what Peter has witnessed and reported about the reception of the word of God by those Gentiles and their baptism and conversion, a reception that does not, however, solve the larger question of whether or not these Gentiles will be fully welcomed to the table fellowship with Jewish Christians. After all, it still must be shown that Jewish Christians can eat with these Gentiles; do these Gentile converts have equal status with those who first believed, or are they still somehow second-class members, made so by their general uncleanness with regard to proper food? The refusal to eat correctly may be a bridge too far for these strict Jewish believers in Jesus Messiah.

         We must note that Peter’s defense of his actions glosses over completely the question of table fellowship, however important the circumcision party makes it out to be. Peter appears to move beyond all that in his defense as he summarizes what happened in Cornelius’s house. “But as I was starting to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us in the beginning” (Acts 11:15). Peter sees no difference in the work of the Holy Spirit with the Gentiles than its work “upon us in the beginning.” That is to say: what we were or were not eating had nothing to do with the Spirit’s work. “If therefore God gave them the same gift as to us who had believed in the Lord Jesus Messiah, was I powerful enough to prevent God?” (Acts 11:17). Peter concludes his defense with the certainty that God’s own hand has affected the inclusion of the Gentiles, and Peter has no business questioning that divine work, and even if he wanted to—which he plainly does not—he could not have impeded the desires of God. 

         “When they heard all these things, they quieted and glorified God. They said, ‘Therefore God has given repentance to life even to the Gentiles’” (Acts 11:18). Issues of Jewish belief and practice have been sidelined in the light of God’s amazing work through Peter with the Gentiles; their baptism and conversion are signs of God’s presence with them. Thus, they are indeed welcome in the community of Christians as full participants. This is by no means the end of these controversies, as the Jerusalem council will make obvious (Acts 15), but in this repeated telling of the actions of the Spirit with Cornelius the reader can see that however treacherous the journey through troubled theological waters, the Spirit can be trusted to serve as guide. And so it is for us today. Our continual difficulties with including those who have previously been excluded—for us United Methodists especially our LGBTQIA+ siblings—can be overcome by these wonderful tales from Acts that proclaim that full inclusion in God is not only possible but commanded under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.