89 “Doubting” in Acts 10:20? 2. ∆ιακρίνομαι’s meaning – established through literary analysis Acts 10:20 occurs within a larger narrative (10:1-11:18)28 that reports two men’s visions (Cornelius in 10:3, and Peter in 10:11), which they receive on two consecutive days at specific times29. An angel commands Cornelius to invite Peter to his house (10:5); “the voice”30 commands Peter to eat meat that the Mosaic law classifies unclean (10:13-15), and to accompany Cornelius’ servants μηδὲν διακρινόμενος, “contesting nothing” (10:20). Luke also describes Cornelius’ and Peter’s reactions to their respective visions: Cornelius is “afraid” (ἔμφοβος, v. 4), and Peter, “confused” and “pondering” (διαπόρεω, v. 17; διενθυμέομαι, v. 19)31. However, both men obey the orders they receive and, thus, play a vital role in Luke’s account of early Jews’ acceptance of Gentile believers as fully equal members of Christ-believing communities. Within the larger narrative, 10:20 echoes elements of the preceding literary context and foreshadows events that have yet to be narrated; that is, this verse functions as a transition between the accounts of Peter’s vision and his encounter with Cornelius. First, the phrase ἀναστὰς κατάβηθι (“get up and go down”, 10:20) echoes nearby passages in which Luke combines the verb ἀνίστημι with an imperative to convey a sense of narrative urgency. In 8:26-27, an angel commands Philip to “get up and go” (ἀνάστηθι καὶ πορεύου) – he leaves immediately (ἀναστὰς ἐπορεύθη). Saul (9:6) is told to “get up and enter” Damascus (ἀνάστηθι καὶ εἴσελθε) – he gets up (ἠγέρθη) and is led into the city. In 9:11-15, Ananias is told repeat- edly to “get up and go” to meet and bless Saul (ἀναστὰς πορεύθητι, v. 11; πορεύου, v. 15) – he obeys, although he objects to this instruction (ἀπῆλθεν, v. 17)32. Aeneas and Tabitha (9:34 and 40) obey Peter’s com- mand to get up (ἀνάστηθι) by rising immediately (εὐθέως ἀνέστη, v. 34; ἀνεκάθισεν, v. 40). In 9:38-39, Peter responds to his fellow disciples’ request to follow them without delay (μὴ ὀκνήσῃ διελθεῖν ἕως ἡμῶν, 9:38) Baumert (“Wortspiel” 32) highlights the servants’ function as “messengers”. 27 Cf. Gaventa, Acts 162; Fitzmyer, Acts 446; Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity 28 of Luke-Acts. A Literary Interpretation 2: The Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis 1990) 128; Edith M. Humphrey, “Collision of Modes? Vision and Determining Argument in Acts 10:1-11:18”, Semeia 71 (1995) 65-84. Cf. Roland D. Witherup (“Cornelius Over and Over and Over Again: ‘Functional 29 Redundancy’ in the Acts of the Apostles”, JSNT 49 [1993] 45-66, here 47-9) for a detailed portrayal of Peter and Cornelius. In v. 19, one reads that “the spirit” speaks to Peter. 30 Cf. Gaventa (Acts 163) for a brief outline of the larger narrative’s structure. 31 Gaventa (Acts 166) states that Peter’s objections to the spirit (ch. 10) recall Ananias’ 32 own protest (ch. 9).