You, a Rottweiler? Are you serious?

Part of the issue here is how the narrative develops. It’s not too outrageous to suggest that the heightened universal perspective of John reflects a later development, and certainly Paul has to take into account the inclusion of Gentiles in the covenant people. That was yesterday’s post on the death of Jesus in Paul. But even then we should be careful not to read extraneous ideas into Paul’s argument. The significance of Jesus’ death with regard to the Gentiles, as Paul argues in Ephesians 2, is that it led to the abolition of the law (because it had got to the point that the law could only condemn Israel to destruction and not save). But if the law has been abolished, the cultic boundary between Jew and Gentile, circumcision and uncircumcision, is no longer in force, so it becomes possible for Gentiles to have access to the Father through the same Spirit that was given to the Jewish believers.

This was the significance of Acts 10. Because the laws determining uncleanness were no longer valid, there was nothing to stop Cornelius and his family boldly walking in the through the front door. The argument is: Jesus’ death led to the abolition of the law, which gave Gentiles access to the community of Israel. So Jesus died for the Gentiles but not in quite the same way that he died for Israel. The Gentiles receive forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43), but this is attributed not to Jesus’ death for their sins (Peter rather skips over the death) but to their belief in the announcement that God had made Jesus judge of the living and the dead.