If you could write about which Book is/was the last one written, that would be interesting.  You may be aware of (a man) who contends that Galatians was the last book…

We teach it was II Timothy.

Since Galatians is quite clearly written to Israel and is an Acts period book, I wonder why anyone who has knowledge of the Acts 28:28 dispensational dividing line would think that it was the last written? I think that Galatians was the first of Paul’s books written, though that is somewhat less clear than the fact that it is an Acts period book.

The last book would be II Timothy. I believe this for several reasons. In II Timothy 4:6, Paul says “the time of my departure is at hand.” The word for “departure” is the Greek apoluo, which signifies an unloosing from something. It could be literal, like unloosing a boat from a dock, but it can also signify the unloosing of one from a commission or responsibility once he has completed it. That this is what Paul means is made clear in the next sentence, where he says that “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” The race the Lord had set before him to run at the start of his ministry was now completed. I believe that II Timothy was the last task he had to do, and once he put down his pen from writing it, his work for God was completed.

The only way I can see that one could argue that this was not the last book, therefore, is if one argued that it was the last book written in the Acts period, before Paul received his new, post-Acts ministry. To argue this, however, one would either have to be largely ignorant of the conditions that prevailed in the Acts period versus the conditions that prevail today, or else would have to be largely ignorant of the contents of II Timothy, if not both. This book clearly is not an Acts period book, so the only place for it is at the very end of Paul’s ministry. Galatians, on the other hand, belongs squarely in the Acts period.

Can you please explain the apparent conflict behind a God who never changes (James 1:17), and a God who not only changes His mind (Jonah 3:10 and Exodus 32:14), but also became flesh (John 1:14). Does God change?

James 1:17. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

Jonah 3:10. Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Exodus 32:14. So the LORD relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

John 1:14. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

It is absolutely true that God does not change. This is made clear in Scripture. A better example than James 1:17 is, perhaps, Numbers 23:19, where God says to Balaam and Balak, “God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?“

You did a good job of pointing out passages where God does seem to change. He changed His mind and didn’t destroy the Ninevites. He changed His mind and didn’t destroy the Israelites. And the fact that God became a man and dwelt among us seems to fly in the face of Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Yet certainly the author of Hebrews was well aware of the fact that Christ became a Man and dwelt among us. He would not have contradicted a crucial doctrine like this. What is the difference, then, and how is it that God can sometimes change?

I believe that the critical question to ask here is: “How is it that God does not change?” There are some who view God as being completely unchangeable by men and anything men can do…an “unmoved mover,” as they call Him. Yet a careful examination of the Bible will flatly contradict this viewpoint. The unmoved mover God is unchangeable no matter what men do. But this is not the picture set forth by the Bible. The Biblical God is a God of relationship, a God Who enters into a loving union with His people.

The critical part of a relationship is that it requires response. One person in the relationship does something, and the other responds to it. When your wife is sad, for example, you must respond differently to her than when she is happy. Without such interaction, there is no relationship. So the God of relationship must alter and change what He is doing as those He is in relationship with alter and change. This is the action/response that is required for two people to be in relationship to each other.

This, then, is what is going on in those passages where God seems to alter and change. He is not changing Himself, but He is changing in response to the changes made in the people He is relating to. In the case of the Ninevites, God originally intended to destroy them for their wickedness. However, He is always merciful and gracious, and when they submitted in sackcloth and ashes to Him, He forgave them and did not destroy them.

The same thing is true in the case of the harm He intended to do to His people. There is no doubt but that, after all their stubbornness and disobedience to the God Who had so graciously rescued them from slavery and cared for and preserved them again and again, they deserved to be destroyed. Yet God made this suggestion, that He was going to destroy them, to Moses, a man whom He had a relationship with. In this case, it was that relationship with Moses that made all the difference, and not any submission on the part of the people. God and Moses had a relationship, and Moses pleaded with God on behalf of His people. Therefore, because of His relationship with Moses, Go relented and did not do the harm He intended to do to Israel.

But then, we must ask, what is meant when the Bible says God is unchanging? I think the answer here is that God is unchanging in His essential nature and character. This is not true of us. Being finite beings, we can and should grow and mature as time goes on. Hopefully over time we improve in character, although some do the opposite and their character corrupts as time goes on. Yet for God this is not so. His nature, His character, is perfect from the beginning, and so no growth or change is necessary or even possible. God is already perfect. He does not need to grow and change in character. The only growth that occurs with Him is growth in relationship with His people, which growth is on our part, and only receives a response from Him.

Therefore, it cannot be that God made mistakes in parenting with Adam and Eve, mistakes which He learned from later. I have actually read someone who taught this! Notice that this would mean that the author was suggesting that he, now, is smarter than God was then, since he obviously believes he has learned the lessons that God did not realize at the time. Somehow, fleshly human doctrines often lead to the conclusion that man is smarter than God.

So in understanding that it is in His essential nature and character that God does not change, we can understand the contrast between “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever,” and “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” When the Word became flesh, He did change, becoming nothing but a Babe in Mary’s womb. Yet His essential nature and character remained the same. He was no different in His nature and character as a Babe in the womb than He was when He was Jehovah in heaven. He might have taken on flesh, then grown up and become a man, a member of Adam’s race, living upon earth, but His essential nature and character did not change. He did not do something when He was a child in Galilee that was contrary to the nature He displayed when He was equal with God in heaven. Instead, He reflected the same nature and character of God throughout His earthly experience.

So it is when we understand in what way God changes and in what way He does not that we can come to understand the unchanging God and the God Who changes in response to His people. I would point out in closing that God is and always has been the God of relationship. Though this might lead Him to respond to the changes in His people and appear to change Himself, that basic fact, that He is God in relationship to those He loves, is part of His essential nature and character. Therefore, praise God, that is something that will never change.

Thanks again for the great question. Keep studying the Word!

Peter now begins his message. He opens his mouth and begins to speak, but I do not believe that these were Peter’s words. Peter was God’s inspired apostle, and when he spoke he was both speaking on behalf of God, and was speaking with the very words of God. God had sent him on this mission to the household of Cornelius, and God would not fail to give him the words to speak when he arrived there.

Peter begins by summarizing for his hearers what he himself has just learned. He now knows the truth that God shows no partiality. He does not favor people, as we do, based on the things of this world such as nationality.

35. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Peter now declares the lesson he has learned from God, and it is one we would do well to consider. There are many in the Christian world, and even particularly among those who call themselves evangelicals or fundamentalists, who hold the idea that men who have never heard of Jesus Christ are automatically considered as unbelievers and are lost. It is unreasonable to charge a person with unbelief who has never heard the thing he was supposed to believe, yet this is done by many. Yet this is not the truth that Peter learned here.

What Peter declares is that in every nation whoever fears God and works righteousness is accepted by Him. Even though a man may be part of a tribe deep in a jungle somewhere, or living in a country where the name of Jesus Christ is never spoken, he still can do this. If He fears the One he knows to be God, if he refrains from what he knows to be wrong and does that which he knows to be right, then, according to this verse, this man will be accepted with God. This might fly in the face of certain dearly held doctrinal creeds, and yet this is what the Word says, and it cannot be erased. Peter learned this lesson. We would do well if we would learn it as well.

Now some will protest that this means that there will be salvation for some apart from Jesus Christ. It is true that no man will receive salvation unless he has a Savior, and the only available Savior is the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet if we ask for what reason Christ may identify Himself with a man, we can discover here that God’s standard is clear. This has been the standard that to which God has held men from Adam up until now. He expects every man to fear Him and to work righteousness. If a man does this, then the Lord Jesus Christ will save him, whoever he may be. The Lord does not respect persons, as we do. He does not honor one because he lived in a “Christian nation,” or grew up in some particular church. He looks at the heart of men, whatever nation they may be a part of.

Now having said this, we must make it clear that this is not an alternative way to salvation for any who might have heard the message of Christ and yet not cared to believe it. When a man hears the truth about Jesus Christ, then his act of righteousness is to believe on the One God sent, as Christ said in John 6:29, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” For the one who knows the truth about Jesus Christ, there is only one work of righteousness which can any longer be considered as sufficient in the eyes of God, and that is to believe in Him. A man who formerly had feared God and worked righteousness, and yet upon hearing of Christ refused to believe and rejected Him, could not go back to what he was before by continuing to fear God and work righteousness. He is condemned already, not having believed in the name of the only Son of God.

For example, Cornelius was a man who feared God and did what he knew to be right. Thus, up to the time the angel came to him, he was accepted in God’s sight. However, once he had heard what Peter said, if he then had rejected it, and said, “That’s nice, Peter, but I just can’t believe in this One you speak of,” then he would have lost everything he had before. His previous works of righteousness would have counted for nothing in the sight of God, for he would have been guilty of having rejected the Lord Jesus Christ. However, once he did believe, he earned for himself the much greater blessings that come to those who believe. No longer was his fate merely to receive eternal life in God’s kingdom, but now he also was part of the exalted company of believers in the Acts period, and would receive a high position in God’s government in the future.

So this is the lesson that Peter learned, both through his vision, and through what God showed him afterwards. Yet have we learned this same lesson? Will we accept this truth, or will we reject it and refuse to believe that “in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him”? The choice is ours.

The word “nation” here is the Greek word ethnos, the same word that is incorrectly translated as “Gentile” in so many passages. Here the translators were forced to translate it correctly as “nation,” for think how foolish it would be to say “in every Gentile whoever fears Him and works righteousness.” Thus we learn the true meaning of this word. It does not mean a Gentile, but a nation, and should be translated this way in every occurrence. To translate it any other way, as so many translators have done, is simply dishonest translation.

36. The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—

Having declared what he himself had learned, Peter now proceeds to give the word of God to Cornelius and those with him. First, he speaks of the word which God sent to the children of Israel, proclaiming peace through Jesus Christ. “The word” here is logos or the expression of truth which God sent to them. The word “sent” is a form of the Greek word apostello. When this is used of people, we speak of them being sent with authority or commissioned. However, here it speaks of an inanimate thing, the word. When this word is used of inanimate things, it means authorized or made available. Thus, this word regarding peace through Jesus Christ God was authorized to the sons or representatives of Israel.

The sons of Israel were the men living at any one time who thus represented that nation as a whole. The nation as a whole existed throughout time from when Abraham first received his promises from God. Yet only those Israelites who are alive at any one time are currently representing that nation, and these then are the sons of Israel. The word is huios or sons, and should not be translated “children,” as it is here. The point is that these were the Israelites living at that time and representing the fathers that came before them.

Notice that this word was authorized to the sons of Israel only, for this had been true up to the time Peter was speaking these words. Only the Israelites were qualified to receive this message. If a Gentile had been in attendance and heard the word, he could not have received it, for it was not authorized to him. He might ask that a word be authorized to him sometime in the future, as the Gentiles did in Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13:42. Yet until that occurred, he could not receive it. Only to the children of Israel had this word been made available.

Yet now, something new was happening, for God had authorized this word to a certain Gentile and his near friends, this man Cornelius. That is about to become clear as we continue through this passage.

Now Peter gives a word for Cornelius, for he tells him that Jesus Christ is Lord of all. This was a strong word indeed, and yet a true one. If Cornelius accepted this statement, he was already on the road to faith.

37. that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached:

Cornelius already knows this word, Peter proclaims. Some might wonder how this could be, since Peter was just now declaring it to him? Yet remember that Cornelius was a soldier of the occupying force in Israel. He was a lot like what a police officer is today, and it was part of his job to keep the peace in the land. Thus, any big movement that started in the country he had jurisdiction over, it was his business to know about. Considering how the movement following Jesus Christ had continued to grow, as we have seen throughout Acts, he would have been derelict in his duty if he had not sought to learn as much as he could about it. He had to know if there was any threat to Rome in this movement, at the very least. Beyond that, anything that strongly affected the people over which he had charge, he needed to learn about. Thus, he already knew and was well aware of the word regarding Jesus Christ that Peter spoke about.

Yet for all that Cornelius knew about it, he had done nothing to believe this word or procure it for himself. This was no dereliction on his part, for he had no choice in the matter. Even if he had wanted to do this, the word was not for him. It was only authorized to the children of Israel. Cornelius knew this.

Peter goes on describing the word: how it was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached. Again, Galilee was the northern district in Israel, whereas Judea was the southern. Throughout both these regions the word of Jesus Christ had been proclaimed. This had started all the way back after the baptism which John proclaimed.

38. how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

He repeats these facts, again ones that Cornelius already knew, about the Lord. God had anointed or set apart this Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. “Holy spirit” is pneumati hagio in Greek here, and means the power of the Spirit, not the Person. As we have discussed in the past, the Spirit is the Giver, and He is always connected with the gifts; He is the Source of power and is always connected with the power, and He is the Worker and is always connected with the work. When the article “the” appears before the words “holy” and “spirit” in Greek, then the Person of the Spirit is emphasized, whereas when the article “the” does not appear before these words, then the work of the Spirit is emphasized. Here, there is no “the,” and so we would make this, “with holy spirit, even with power.”

The Lord went about doing good, as Cornelius knew, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil. The word “oppressed” here has to do with overpowered. The devil’s power is indeed stronger than our own, but it is as nothing compared to that of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus healing those who were overpowered by him was a most impressive work indeed, and it is no surprise that Cornelius would have heard of it. Peter also reveals how He was able to do this: it was because God was with Him.

39. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree.

Peter now offers himself and those who are with him as witnesses, proving that they have seen all these things that the Lord did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. These things were not exaggerated or imaginary. Yet in Jerusalem, he reveals, they had killed Him by hanging Him on a tree. “They” here means the Jerusalemites, or particularly the leaders among them. These were the ones who had plotted to put the Lord to death by crucifixion.

40. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly,

God responded to this, Peter reveals, and raised Him up on the third day, that is, when death was final and complete according to the Jewish way of thinking of things. God did not hide Him after doing this either, but showed Him openly. These things were not done in secret. As Peter said, Cornelius already knew much about this, and he could easily summon some of the other witnesses Peter mentioned to confirm the truth of this if he wished.

41. not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.

Needless to say, the Lord did not appear to all the people. Yet He did appear to witnesses chosen beforehand for this purpose by God. These witnesses not only saw Him, but ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. Eating and drinking indicated the closest possible fellowship, and one which could not be accounted for by some sort of mass hallucination. No one could insist that a whole group of people would imagine that they had shared a meal with someone who was not really there. They saw Him, they talked with Him, and they ate with Him after He arose from the dead. They were not mistaken in Who this was, for they had done these same things with Him before He died.

The witness of these particular men was perhaps even more impressive than if He had indeed appeared to all the people. Those who were not close to Him might have been deceived by another pretending to be Him. The testimony of those who knew Him better might have gotten lost in the crowd. Yet with Him appearing to those who were closest to Him, they were able to offer their knowledgeable testimony. They knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that this was their Lord, the same One they had eaten and drunk with before His death. Their testimony above all others could be believed.

42. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.

As He was fellowshipping with them after his resurrection, Peter reveals, the Lord gave them a command. He told them to proclaim to the people, that is, to the Israelites. Now these were the Lord’s instructions, according to Peter’s own testimony, even as he stood speaking to a Gentile. The Lord had commanded them to proclaim to the people of Israel. Many have imagined that somehow the apostles had misunderstood the Lord, or refused to believe what He really wanted of them. They think the Lord meant for them to go out and preach to all, Gentiles included, and that the apostles stubbornly refused to do that until the Lord nagged them about it. Yet this is not the testimony of Peter, one of those whom God had chosen before to be a witness. He knew what his commission was, and it was to speak to the people, not to everyone. It is the modern-day expositors, not the apostles, who do not understand the Lord’s command properly.

The apostles were further commanded to testify to the people that it is He, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. The Judge in their mindset was not what we call a judge in our country today. Rather, a judge was one who would determine what was right in any given situation, and then would set things right according to his determination. A judge differed little from a king in Old Testament times, other than that they did not have hereditary lineage for the next judge. When the Lord judges the living and the dead, He will make a determination regarding all of these as to their worthiness or unworthiness to live in the kingdom of God, and then, if they are worthy, regarding what position they shall hold in it.

This same truth is what Paul declared in II Timothy 4:1, when he said:

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom:

Yes, the Lord will judge all men when the kingdom comes. This is the truth Peter is declaring to Cornelius here.

43. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

To this one, Peter declares, all the prophets had given witness. They had done this when they spoke of the One Who was to come as a Savior. Their witness was that through His name (that is, His character and authority,) whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. “Remission” here means “forgiveness.” True forgiveness of sins comes by believing in Christ!

Notice that believing in Him is the only criterion for this forgiveness. They do not have to join a church, give to the offering, or volunteer to help the poor. All that is necessary is that they believe. This is still true today. We know that forgiveness of sins still comes through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I pray that all my readers have exercised such a faith in Him, for He is the One Whom God has set forth to be our Savior.

44. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.

While Peter was still speaking this last sentence, the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and all those with him who heard the word. In the Acts period when this happened to a person, it was a manifest and obvious thing. What happened was something out of the normal, and none could doubt that this was an act of God. Thus the Spirit gave witness to the fact that these people, as they heard the words from Peter, believed them, and believed immediately. No sooner did they hear the word than they believed it. These were indeed the kind of people whom God is ever ready to call His Own!

The first occurrence of “words” in this verse is the Greek word rhema, which has to do with a saying or the actual words used, whereas the second time it says “word” it is the Greek word logos or expression. What Peter was speaking was an actual saying contained in words, and yet it was also an expression of God, and God was made plain to these people through it. Thus, what he spoke was both a rhema and a logos.

The phrase “the Holy Spirit” here in Greek is to pneuma to hagion, or “the Spirit the Holy (One).” Thus it was the Person of the Spirit Who fell upon them. Yet how He did so is through His power, and we will see what the result of that power was in verse 46.

45. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

Now we read of the reaction of those Jewish brethren who had accompanied Peter. There were six of these, as we will read in Acts 11:12, making along with Peter seven witnesses to this event. These six men, all believers, all of the circumcision or law-keeping Israelites, are all astonished to see this. They reason they are amazed is because the gift of the Holy Spirit has been poured out on the nations also. Of course, this does not mean any nation as a whole, but on Cornelius and his household and friends, as members of the nations as a whole and not of God’s chosen nation of Israel. This was an unexpected and amazing thing to these circumcised believers. Even though they knew from Peter that God had sent them to a Gentile household for some reason, they had never imagined that it would be for something like this. As far as they knew, the gift of the Spirit was only for the Israelites, and was not meant for men of other nations. Thus, they were astounded that God had done this.

Yet if this so astonished these Jewish believers, then we must conclude that they had never seen or imagined such a thing up to this time. It could not be that since Acts 2 God had been calling Jews and Gentiles together into something called “the church” if here in Acts 10 the Jewish believers are astonished to see even one group of Gentiles receive the gift of the Spirit. The truth is that Cornelius and his household were the first Gentile believers they had ever heard of, and the first non-Jews to receive the gift of the Spirit. Thus, these men were astonished.

The phrase “of the Holy Spirit” here is tou hagiou pneumatos, or “of-the Holy Spirit,” in Greek. Thus again it is the Person of the Spirit Who is referred to. However notice here that the full phrase is “the gift of the Holy Spirit” here, and so once again the Giver is connected with His gift. This is ever the case throughout the New Testament.

46. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter answered,

This tells us what the gift of the Spirit was that they saw Cornelius and those with him receive. They spoke with tongues, magnifying God in the languages they were speaking. It is as the people said in Acts 2:11, “We hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” Even so it now was with these Gentiles. The Spirit gave them a gift, and that gift was complete and flawless knowledge of certain languages that they had never learned or spoken before. Now they were using those languages to speak words magnifying God. This proved to these Jewish brethren that this could be no less than the work of God.

47. “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

Now Peter speaks up. He seems to be speaking to the men of the circumcision who were there with him. Normally, as good law-keeping Israelites, these would have demanded that men must be circumcised and agree to keep the law of Moses before they could be counted as part of the nation of Israel. Yet Peter asks if any of these would now dare to forbid water for these men, that they should not be baptized, when they had already received the Holy Spirit just as Peter and his companions have? And it seems that no one could. When God gave this gift of the Spirit, it was an obvious thing. Now matter how much it might seem logically or religiously or culturally wrong to them, they could not deny that God had acted, and they could not argue with Him.

As we have discussed, to be baptized means to be identified. What Peter wanted was to have these men be identified, through means of a water ritual, with the company of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. Until now, this company had consisted purely of Israelites who believed. Now, however, one small company of Gentiles is to be added to that number.

Once these men were identified with Him, it would be too late for them to back out. They had joined God’s government, and thus were under His control. They could not “backslide” and get away with it. They could not be derelict in their duty to Him. Like a man who is sworn in as a soldier in the army today, they are now under obligation, and woe be to them if they do not fulfill it!

Men may perform a ritual that they call baptism today. Yet though this ritual might identify a person with a certain church, it does absolutely nothing to identify a person with God. Those who perform these baptisms have no right to act on God’s behalf, and God pays no attention to their actions. Yet Peter was a man qualified by God to act as His apostle, and so when he identified a man, that man was identified. For Cornelius and his household, once this had occurred, they were identified, and this could not be changed.

Peter notes here as proof of the rightness of the action he is suggesting that these men had received the Holy Spirit even as they had. How, then, could it be that some today argue that this “speaking in tongues” is not the same as that of Acts 2, but that there it was languages, whereas here it was a meaningless babble, such as self-styled “tongues speakers” perform today? This could not be! Such a babble would not have been just as the Jews had received it, and it would have proved nothing of the kind to them. Instead, it would have reminded them of the actions of the so-called oracles in the heathen temples of their day, who performed the “tongues of religious ecstasy” when they were supposedly speaking for their pagan gods. If the Jews had heard this, they would have rejected these men in disgust, concluding that they were idol worshippers and not followers of the true God. No, these tongues could have been nothing but languages. The gift these men received was the ability to speak a language they had never learned. Anything else would not have proven a thing.

The phrase “the Holy Spirit” here is again to pneuma to hagion, and means the Person of the Spirit. The Gentiles had received Him, even as the Jews had, through His gift of tongues.

48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Receiving no objections from his fellow Israelites, Peter commands that Cornelius and those with him be baptized in the name of the Lord. This no doubt was done by means of a water ritual, though we do not know what that ritual was or how they performed it. Yet the ritual was not the important thing. What was important was the reality that they were now identified with the Lord Jesus Christ, even to the point of being merged with Him. Peter was a man who could do this to a person on behalf of God. When he did it to these men, they were identified with Christ from then on.

Having received this identification, Cornelius and his group now ask Peter to stay with them a few days. No doubt they wanted to learn more of the truth, and more about this Lord Jesus Christ that they had now identified themselves with. We certainly cannot blame them, for no doubt if we had a messenger from God in our houses, we would probably hope to get him to stay a while as well. As far as we can tell, Peter granted their request, and stayed in their home a few days to teach them more about the Lord Jesus.

Thus we learn of the conversion of Cornelius and his household and friends. This was a pivotal point in Acts indeed, as well as in the history of God’s work. It marked the first time a Gentile believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet this would not pass without resistance, as we will see in the following chapter.

Peter knows well how to obey, and so he goes down to the men. He identifies himself as the one they seek, and then asks them for what reason they have come? Remember, though the Spirit told Peter they had come and He had sent them, He had not told Peter why He sent them or what they would want. All He told Peter to do was to go down to them, and then to go with them. Thus, Peter asks them why it is that they have come? That three Gentile men like this would come seeking him would not have been a common experience for Peter at all. God has not informed him of what is going on here, so he is still unsure exactly why they are there.

22. And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.”

The three messengers of Cornelius identify the one who sent them. They also feel the need to throw in a few good words about Cornelius here. They too must have been aware that they were calling upon an Israelite, and that officials in the occupying army were not well-loved by such, to say the least. Thus, they bring in the fact that Cornelius fears God. The Jews hated the Romans as polytheists, and the fact that Cornelius was not one of these must have impressed them. They also bring in the fact that he is a just man. Another problem that most Jews had with their occupiers was the injustices they practiced on the people based upon the position of power they held over them. The fact that Cornelius did not do this spoke well of him. Finally, they bring in the good reputation that Cornelius has among all the nation of the Jews. This again was a most unusual thing for a Roman occupier, and said much about Cornelius in a few words.

Now, Cornelius’ messengers speak of the instructions given to Cornelius by God through His messenger. The word “summon” here is a form of pempo again, and indicates a simple sending to get Peter, not sending with authority. A request like this summons was one that any Roman in occupied territory would have been hesitant to make of a Jew under normal circumstances, yet this is the request they have been told to make by God. Now, Peter must respond, and he will do so based upon the vision he had received. He well knows what God’s instructions to him are, and like an obedient servant he will carry them out.

Notice the interesting expression they use here, the “nation of the Jews.” The word for “nation” here is ethnous, and if we translated this consistently with the way it is so often translated in so many of our versions, we would have to make this “the Gentile of the Jews.” But how ridiculous would that be, as if the Jews had their own, pet Gentile, and Cornelius’ messengers are here talking about him! The translators have been forced here to translate this word “nation,” as it should always be translated. Yet let us learn from this the truth: that Israel was as much a nation (not a “Gentile!”) as anyone else, and it is wrong for us to exclude them from statements about “the nations” by translating this phrase “the Gentiles.” Since Israel is a nation, there are times in the Bible when the phrase “the nations” includes them as a nation. To translate this phrase by “the Gentiles” obscures this truth. For this reason, among others, this word should always be rendered as “nation” or “nations.”

23. Then he invited them in and lodged them.
On the next day Peter went away with them, and some brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

Peter must have been surprised to see that the men God had sent him were Romans, yet he obeyed the instructions he had been given by the Holy Spirit, considering well the lesson of the vision he had received. Thus, he acts in accordance with it, not only to go with the men, but he also invites them into Simon the tanner’s house and gives them lodging there. This is something that no Israelite under normal circumstances would have done. For one thing, they knew that men of other nations did not keep the clean and unclean laws that God had given to His people. A Gentile would have no idea if he had come in contact with anything unclean, nor would he have gone through the ritual cleansing to make himself clean again afterwards if he had. By bringing a Gentile into your home, you were almost guaranteeing that he might make you and everything he came in contact with unclean. Thus, most Jews would never under any circumstances have invited a Gentile into their homes. Yet Peter now realizes that God has declared these men clean, and he believes God and treats them as such.

On top of this, though, these men were not just any Gentiles, but Romans. The Roman army was occupying Israel at this time, as I have already pointed out. To invite a Roman into your home, on top of bringing uncleanness, would have given many of your fellow Israelites the strong impression that you were fraternizing with the enemy. On top of this, their culture attached even more importance to lodging someone in your home and sharing food with them than we do today. They viewed this as a sign of the closest possible kinship and fellowship. For this reason, the centurion in Luke 7:6 declared himself unworthy to have the Lord come under his roof. He knew the stigma this would bring upon the Lord, and he didn’t want to be the cause of subjecting Him to that. Yet now, God Himself has commanded Peter to fellowship with these Romans. To Peter’s credit, when he was commanded to do this, he did not hesitate. Many try to make this story a picture of Peter’s prejudice and lack of faithfulness to the Lord’s commands. In reality, it is the exact opposite, for it shows just how obedient Peter was. He was willing to forego every social stigma and risk severe censure and rejection at the hand of his fellow Jews in order to obey the orders he was given. Peter was a faithful man indeed!

Now the next day Peter goes with them, journeying back to Ceasarea to visit Cornelius, as he had been commanded. He is not going to go alone on this, however. He and the brethren with him must have known the social stigma that Peter and anyone who accompanied him was risking by obeying God’s command on this. No doubt, the brethren determined that Peter could not be expected to go this alone, and face alone the possible outcome of having been bold enough to do this. Thus, these men accompany Peter, not just to serve him, but also to be witnesses as to his conduct, and to prove that they, too, are willing to follow God wherever He leads, no matter what radical actions that might require.

24. And the following day they entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends.

Peter, his company, and the messengers arrive in Caesarea the following day. Waiting for them, we learn that Cornelius has gathered together quite a company. Not only is he himself waiting, but he has called together his relatives and close friends. This probably was a large company of people who, like Cornelius, were interested in the true God. Cornelius had probably gathered such a company around himself, perhaps even being responsible for some of them having this attitude towards God. Now, he wants them all to share with him in the message he is about to receive from God.

25. As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.

Cornelius knew that Peter would be God’s messenger to him, but there can be little doubt but that he took him to be more than that, for he fell down at his feet and worshipped him. Cornelius gave Peter the same status as we would give Jesus Christ. He thought perhaps that Peter was God in human form. This was something that was foreign to the thinking of an Israelite, but would have been a much more acceptable thought to a Gentile like Cornelius. No doubt Cornelius had wondered who it was whom God would be sending to see him in this sensational and miraculous way as he waited for his messengers to return. Of course he didn’t know, but it is human nature to guess, and he had come to this conclusion. Cornelius had the right idea, though he had the wrong man. There is a Man Who is God in human form, but He is not the one who was standing before Cornelius now. Yet Peter represented him, and so Peter will do His work now to straighten Cornelius out and to reveal to him the truth.

26. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”

Peter wastes no time in straightening Cornelius out. He lifts him to his feet, informing him that he too is just a man like Cornelius. This is a good lesson for all to take whom men might elevate to the status that should be reserved for God alone. If Peter, God’s apostle and representative on earth, would not take the glory that belongs to God alone, how much less should we take it?

This also provides an answer for those who wish to make out that Jesus Christ Himself was just a Man, maybe just a particularly Spirit-filled Man, and not God. Yet we know that men offered Jesus Christ worship, and He never stopped them from doing so or straightened them out, as Peter did here. We can see this in Matthew 2:11, 8:2, 9:18, 14:33, 15:25, 20:20, 28:9; Mark 5:6; Luke 24:52; and John 9:38, in all of which the same Greek word proskuneo is used as is used here. The Lord accepts worship, and does not refuse it as Peter did here. What clearer evidence could we have but that the Lord considered Himself as more than a Man, in fact, as God Himself?

27. And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together.

Peter continues to talk with Cornelius, though we do not have what their further conversation was. Yet as they talked, they went into Cornelius’ house, an act which in itself was forbidden by Jewish custom. Yet Peter has been commanded to come to this house, nothing doubting, and Peter is a man who learned to obey the Lord. Now inside, Peter finds this group of many people whom Cornelius had gathered together to meet him. Now Peter knows he must address this crowd of eager individuals to bring them whatever message God might have for them.

28. Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Peter by coming into this house had just committed an act that was most strongly taboo for his people and culture. Therefore, the first thing he does for this crowd is to explain his actions. They already knew that it is unlawful for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. Being Gentiles living among the Jews, they would be made aware of this fact every day, for it was the culture they were living in as outsiders. Yet Peter tells them that God has shown him a truth that he did not know before: that he should not call any man common or unclean. This was what God said, and, though it went counter to Peter’s culture and everything he had been taught and grown up to believe, Peter was a man who believed God rather than men. This is a lesson we would do well to take to heart when we find that our own culture and upbringing conflicts with what God has said.

The word “unlawful” here is not based on the usual word for the law of God, nomos. Rather it is the Greek word athemitos, and is used only here in connection with Jewish practice. It has to do with being contrary to custom or statute. Peter is not saying that this was contrary to the law God had given to Moses, for it was not. Yet it was contrary to their custom and practice, and that is why the Jews did not do it. Now, God said differently, so Peter was acting differently.

Notice that this is what Peter now realizes God had shown him. This was the point of the vision he received. Thus we now learn the interpretation of the great vision of the sheet let down from heaven with the unclean animals in it. What God was showing Peter was this: that he should not call any man common or unclean. This is what the unclean foods in the great heavenly vessel were symbolizing. Thus this vision was making a statement about men. From now on, Peter was to view no man as unclean in God’s sight.

Conversely, this vision was not telling Peter anything about food. God was not telling Peter to start eating unclean foods from then on. That was not how Peter understood it, and that is not how we should understand it either. This changed nothing for Peter regarding his diet. That change would wait for Paul to announce it, as he did in I Timothy 4:4-5.

4. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5. for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Yet at this time for Peter, these laws still applied. To take this vision and apply it to foods is to twist it. The reality of the vision is that it had nothing to do with foods. To make it out to be talking about foods is to twist it. Just because all foods are clean for us today does not mean that we should twist this passage to be saying that. Peter was living in the Acts period, and this great change had not yet taken place. For Peter, there still were clean and unclean foods. Not until later, until another dispensational change took place, would all meats be considered clean.

29. Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. I ask, then, for what reason have you sent for me?”

Peter completes his explanation. It was because God had shown him this that he had come as soon as he was asked for. God had freed him from this cultural tradition that would have kept him from coming to Cornelius. May God likewise free us from the traditions of our culture that would separate us from doing His will!

Now Peter asks Cornelius for what reason he had sent for him? Notice that Peter honestly does not know. Peter has not come to this house expecting to preach the gospel to these Gentiles. In his mind, the gospel is not for Gentiles, and thus he does not imagine that that is why God has sent him. Peter is rather puzzled, not knowing for what reason God has sent him on this mission.

I suppose that most evangelical types today would think that Peter should have immediately known, that he should have walked right into this house and started preaching the gospel to these people. Yet what these fail to understand is that Peter was operating under a different dispensation than we do today. The gospel at that time was not freely available to all nations, as it is today (Acts 28:28.) Instead, the word was sent to the people of Israel (Acts 2:39, 13:26.) They were the ones authorized to hear it, and none others. Was Peter wrong to think this? Most certainly not, for this was the command he had been given by the Lord.

The program the apostles were given was that they were to go out and proclaim the truth to Israelites around the world. Once this was done and Israel was brought into the kingdom, then they would take the truth to the nations, bringing them into the kingdom as well. That was what Peter understood was to happen, and that is what had been happening throughout the book of Acts up until this time. Now God is interrupting the program with something new, and Peter does not know what it is. He only knows that he has been commanded to do something, and, like a good servant, he is doing it.

30. So Cornelius said, “Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,

Cornelius starts to repeat his part of the story. Four days ago, he tells Peter, he was fasting until this very hour. Thus we discover that it must again have been afternoon around three o’clock at this very time when Peter was meeting with them. In the record earlier we did not learn that he was fasting, nor did we learn, as he now says, that he was praying in his house when he received the vision. Thus, Cornelius tells us some new details here that we didn’t know before. Perhaps Cornelius was seeking after God through his fasting, for that is often what fasting was a sign of. Thus the visit to him was an answer to his prayer and heartfelt seeking. It is a rule of the kingdom that “he who seeks finds” (Matthew 7:8, Luke 11:10.) Cornelius sought, and the Lord granted him his request.

Now, Cornelius reveals, a man stood before him in bright clothing. This is all according to the story as we read it earlier in the chapter. Otis Sellers translates this as “splendid attire.” In the paintings and illustrations we are used to seeing of angels, they are always dressed in simple white robes. Clearly, this angel was wearing something far more spectacular than this. While it does not describe this apparel for us, we can be sure that it was an impressive set of clothes indeed.

31. and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms are remembered in the sight of God.

This is not exactly how the angel said it, though it is close, and pretty much says the same thing. Cornelius is not trying to be inaccurate, but remember that he is speaking four days later, and repeating the angel’s words from memory. He does not get them exactly right. Yet how human this is! Which of us could repeat word-for-word a message we received four days before, no matter how impactful it was? The important fact is that he remembered all the basic points, and repeated them honestly.

Yet notice too that this is a proof of the authenticity and inspiration of this Book. God remembers exactly both what the angel said and how Cornelius repeated it, and He accurately repeats both. Yet a forger, or even one writing an honest history but working off of human memory, would have only bothered obtaining one quote, and probably when repeating it here would have rolled the scroll back to see what he wrote before, and would have copied it word-for-word. Yet God gives both the original message and Cornelius’ imperfect repetition of it word-for-word. Only God could write this way!

32. Send therefore to Joppa and call Simon here, whose surname is Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea. When he comes, he will speak to you.’

Cornelius continues repeating the angel’s message. Again, he does not get it exactly right, although all the important details of the instructions he was given are here. If we were to number the important points of both messages, we would find they are there in both messages. They just are not put in the same words. Cornelius was a man used to following orders, and he knew how to remember them. Yet even he was not up to repeating them in the exact same words used. Yet he repeats them competently and sufficiently.

33. So I sent to you immediately, and you have done well to come. Now therefore, we are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God.”

Upon receiving these orders, Cornelius reveals, he immediately sent to Peter. Peter has done well to come, he says, acknowledging that he had to break Jewish custom in doing so, but knowing that Peter did this at the command of God. Cornelius knows it is always good to follow the orders of God. He has done so, and he recognizes that Peter has done so as well.

Now, he concludes to Peter, he and all these his friends are present before God, waiting to hear the things God has commanded Peter to tell them. Now, it is up to Peter to speak the words God has given him.

The word “present” here is the Greek word pareimi, which means “present,” as we have discussed before, as opposed to the more technical parousia, which has to do with an official presence. They were present before Peter and before God, waiting to hear His words.

I have always wondered what it was the Corinthians were doing to be deserving of punishment, even unto death, when partaking of the Passover?  How could they eat and drink unworthily?  Was this unworthy eating and drinking something that was warned against in the OT as well, or is it a NT concept as Paul says they would be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”?    

My take on it is that since the Passover now has a new and more profound meaning for these NT believers who were Israelites, to unworthily partaking would involve either a non-believer or a believer who is not living the “Kingdom” life that was expected of him.  I understand that a life outside the will of God in the Acts period would be dealt with by God, but why is punishment attached to the partaking of the Passover if done unworthily?  

I would find it very doubtful that this would be referring to non-believers or unbelievers, since they would not be keeping the Passover outside the land. The revelation that “Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast,” (I Corinthians 5:7b-8a,) would not have been made to them. This is doubtless referring to believers who were doing something unworthy, and yet still thinking that, since they had permission, they could go ahead and keep the Passover in the way they had been given it by God’s kingdom representatives. The violent results of this showed them that this was not, in fact, the case.

What might they have been doing that was unworthy of the Passover? I suppose any number of things, but the Lord mentions a specific one in I Corinthians 10:21-22.

21. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

From the context, it is clear that some of the Corinthians were partaking of sacrifices made to idols, which Paul says actually represent demons, and then coming and thinking they were free to keep the Passover, since Christ their Passover had been sacrificed for them. This was not right, and they were with sickness and death paying for such an unworthy attitude and such unworthy actions.

We know there were a lot of other problems going on in Corinth as well. They were misusing what had once been called the Lord’s Dinner, but now was not that, but a travesty. They had a man among them who had his father’s wife. They were divided by which teacher they chose to follow. In these many problems and difficulties, they dishonored their Lord. Yet they did not judge themselves unworthy, and came to the Lord’s table as if nothing was wrong. Since they would not judge themselves, God judged them, and many paid the price.

One important fact about the Passover is that even the most sincere worshipper had to be ceremonially clean in order to keep it. If they could not keep it on the proper day, therefore, provision was made for them to keep it a month later. This is set forth in Numbers 9. Since they were not actually performing a blood sacrifice, as they would have been with the Passover, and since they did not have access to the temple and the cleansing ritual, the Corinthians could not be clean when they kept the Passover, at least, not ceremonially. But since they were dealing with realities, they should have realized that what the Lord truly demanded of them was a clean lifestyle when they appeared before Him.

Because they finally had been given permission to do so, they were happily keeping the Passover outside the land without worrying about the parts of the ritual they could not keep. However, how insulting was it to the Lord that they did not even bother to make sure they had a clean lifestyle before they dared to appear before Him? For that was the point of the Passover, “Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord GOD.” Exodus 23:17. Yet they were daring to appear before the Lord with their lives and walks with Him an utter mess and a complete disgrace. They were so happy that they had permission to appear before Him, that they never considered the responsibility of doing so. How dare any of them appear before Him in the kind of condition they were coming before Him in, as Paul describes it in I Corinthians? Of course the Lord was not pleased with them, and of course they sickened and died when they dared to appear before His presence like this.

Is immortality given to the wicked?

A good question. If God pours out health on all at the start of the kingdom, does He give deathlessness to the wicked as well?

The Greek word translated immortal is athanatos. The word means without death, that is, the sin and death principle introduced into the human race by Adam. If we take this as being the definition of immortality, then certainly all in the kingdom, including the rebels at the end of it during the tribulation, will have this. But only the righteous will truly live forever, in the sense in which we usually think of the word “immortal.” So according to the common use of the word, immortality is truly “conditional” upon God granting it.

So it depends on how you take immortality. If you identify it with athanatos, then yes, all will have immortality in the kingdom, even the wicked. But if you take it as truly never dying, then that will only be granted by God to the righteous.

I have a question.  Would you explain the “resurrection” found in Philippians 3:11?  It is defined as “out resurrection” by Dr. Bullinger, but I am not sure what that means. Is Paul striving to attain unto a special resurrection or is he simply focusing on being “out from among dead things in Christ in this life?” Thanks in advance for any clarity you can provide.  There are some that see this “resurrection” as a special calling with a special hope in the heavenlies.  All of this seems quite confusing in the light of our placement in God’s earthly Kingdom. 

The reason Dr. Bullinger defines this as an “out-resurrection” is that the word used here in Greek is literally the Greek word for resurrection, anastasis, with the prefix “out” in front of it, in Greek ex. So the word is exanastasis, and occurs only here.

Paul throughout this section (Philippians 3:7-15) is discussing his determination to leave old things behind and to press forward to attain to what is new. I believe that the book of Philippians was written to those in Philippi who originally believed in the Acts period who were now dealing with the postponement of the kingdom of God and the cessation of their privileges that they had previously enjoyed under it. They were having to give up the hope that the kingdom would come in their lifetime, as well as all the miraculous benefits of health and healing, not to mention Divine direction, that they were enjoying in the Acts period. Now, they had to learn to start living in the dispensation of grace, when God is silent and all the powers they formerly enjoyed had been taken away.

Paul informs them here that he is willing for the sake of Christ to give up all the blessings that he had formerly enjoyed in the Acts period as one of God’s apostles. He is willing to do this in order to attempt to attain to the blessings of the higher calling God is holding out to men in the dispensation of grace. Part of this higher calling is the resurrection of present-day believers, here called the “out-resurrection.”

There are two things that I believe the out-resurrection is not. One is that it is not to a different place than the normal resurrection. Those who have their place in it will be resurrected to the earth, just like those who are resurrected from other companies. The point of the “high calling” is not that anyone will be called up to heaven or the heavenlies rather than to the earth, but that this calling is higher than that offered to men in the Acts period (and thus Paul’s desire to attain to it.)

Secondly, I do not believe that this “out-resurrection” is at a different time than the other resurrections. Colossians 3:4 says, “When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.” The word for “appear” is phaneroo, which means to be made manifest. When Who and what Christ is in the sight of God is made manifest to the world, then who and what the believer of today is in the sight of God will also be manifested. This will probably mean that we will be resurrected at that time to be manifested. We, then, may be one of the first peoples to be resurrected in the Kingdom of God, but our out-resurrection will still take place among the resurrections at the start of the kingdom.

Mr. Welch once used the illustration that out of a crowd of people who are graduating, some may be called out of the crowd to receive special awards. These are still among the crowd of people who are graduating, even though they have been called out for a special position in that graduation. He then suggested that the out-resurrection may well be the same way. I like the illustration very much. I think that those who are raised from the dead as having been believers in the dispensation of grace will be this out-resurrection, who will receive a special reward of an exalted position in the kingdom to come.

(By the way, I would disagree with Mr. Welch on many other things regarding the resurrection of believers today, so I am not saying I agree with him on everything regarding this resurrection. I just like this illustration, and think it well illustrates what the out-resurrection is all about.)

I hope that helps.

An out resurrection, out from amongst the dead. When does it happen?

The whole context of Paul’s words in Philippians 3:11 reveal that he had been offered the opportunity, if he would strive after it, of leaving behind the Acts period company in which he was placed when he became a believer, and instead switching over to the dispensation of grace company that God started calling at Acts 28:28. What was automatic for anyone who was first saved during this time Paul had to strive for. In verses 13 and 14, he says, “Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” I think the New King James badly translates it here. The call is not “upward,” as of direction, but “high” as of an elevated calling. Paul was enamored with the high position that God had now thrown open to men in this new dispensation. It was his desire to leave behind everything he had gained as part of the Acts period company of believers to attain to this new and high calling. Therefore, the out-resurrection he refers to in verse 11 must be the resurrection of this new, high calling.

As far as when it happens, there is no reason to believe that it is accelerated in time from the resurrection of other saints, only in position. People will be resurrected at the same time who will pass into very different companies. Those who are part of this “out-resurrection” are resurrected to a special position, not at a special time.

I believe that the resurrection of all God’s saints from down through the ages will take place in the same time period, that is, when God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, judges “the living and the dead at His appearing even His kingdom.” II Timothy 4:1. There will be a period of resurrection at the start of that kingdom. Not all who are resurrected then will be resurrected at the same time. Colossians 3:4 says, “When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.” This would seem to indicate that when Christ is made manifest to the world, we will be at the same time. It could well be that our resurrection, then, will take place at the very beginning of the resurrection period starting the kingdom, so that we can be manifested with Him. Others will be resurrected later, as time goes on. But still the point of the out-resurrection is, I believe, a higher position, not an earlier time.

What do you believe that the term “afterward” is referring to in Joel 2:28 when the prophet said,
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:” (Joe 2:28).

What do you believe that this great event is to be after in the context? Is it after that Israel is satisfied and after they know that He is in their midst (verses 26 and 27) that He pours out His spirit upon all flesh, or is this after something else occurs?

The Hebrew word here is achar, which is related to the highly significant word acharith, which is often translated “last” in the term “last days.” However, I believe acharith has to do with the result, and the acharith days are the resultant days or the “sequel of the days,” if you will.

Achar means after, there is no doubt. However, it seems to me that the Lord uses “AFTER” as a designation for the kingdom of God in multiple places in the Word of God. It is rather as if I would say, “I am waiting for The After, when all God’s promises will come true.” Often, our versions translate the word as “afterwards” in these cases, as representing the idea better to our English-speaking minds. The word is just “after,” however. Psalm 73:24 is an example of this.

24. You will guide me with Your counsel,
And afterward receive me to glory.

Isaiah 1:26 is another example.

26. I will restore your judges as at the first,
And your counselors as at the beginning.
Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.”

Hosea 3:5 is another passage that uses it this way.

5. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days.

Here, “afterward” is connected with the acharith days at the end of the verse.

Having said this, it often happens that I make a statement that a word CAN mean a certain thing, and some respond by pointing out to me passages where it CANNOT mean that same thing. I am well aware that there are literally hundreds of passages where this word simply means “after.” There is just no doubt about this. I am suggesting that the context of certain verses points to the fact that God can speak of His great kingdom to come as “After.” This may be relatively rare, but it is a fitting title for the time that will come After all our suffering and sorrows have come to an end.

This is then what I believe is being referred to in Joel 2:28. He is referring to the greatest After, the coming kingdom. In the New Testament, this word is translated by eschatos (last) in Acts 2:17, and the word hemera for “days” is added. This makes this time to correspond with the acharith days of the Old Testament prophecies. Since the Septuagint reads meta tauta or “after this” rather than “last days,” it is clear that the Spirit has purposefully clarified His former words for us, revealing to us that by “after” in Joel 2:28, He had meant the great Last Days of prophecy.

Something to note:
In the book of Joel the Spirit outpouring (2:28-32) comes after the Great Ingathering (2:15-17). It wouldn’t be a big deal, but the first part of verse 28 says “After this”. To make things more confusing chapter three then starts talking about the great ingathering.

In reading through Joel, I don’t really think that it would be a very good source for setting up a continuous timeline. It seems to refer, in some places, to events happening in Joel’s day, but then it equates them, or passes on to, other things that will take place in the future. It seems to deal with events during the tribulation period at the end of the premillennial kingdom, events at the beginning of the millennial reign, events at the great outpouring, and events at the great ingathering. Centuries of time are crossed between verses that seem to be tied together. If you read my article on “Two Major Turning Points in the New Testament,” you know that this is nothing unusual, as I gave the example there of a single verse in Isaiah that tied together in the same sentence events in Christ’s day and events at the time of God’s wrath thousands of years later. Christ, in His teaching, split them apart again. There is no rule of sequential reference in prophetic writings, particularly in a poetic writing like Joel’s.

Luke translates “after this” as eschatais hemerais in Acts 2:17, or “in the last days,” which makes this “after this” to be referring to a particular time, not necessarily to the time following verse 27. I don’t think we can establish a definite time link between these two verses.

I don’t think we can establish one continuous timeline throughout this book. It refers to multiple events at multiple stages of the kingdom of God. Joel 3 seems to talk both about the great ingathering and the great tribulation.