Another Odd Set of Seekers

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him."  When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. (Matthew 2:1-3 NASB)

This is one of those ironies in the Bible that I find so troubling.   The Apostle John simply summarizes the whole event by saying, "He came unto His own, but His own did not receive Him."  Why shepherds?  Why "magicians" from another, Gentile country?  Why, when they hear of the arrival of the "Messiah," are they "troubled"?  Why do the "wise men" of Jerusalem stay in-town rather than seek the announced Child?  They know where He is, but don't go.  The people wait in hope, but are troubled when He arrives.

On the website, www.BethlehemStar.net there is a great explanation of what the Magi saw that compelled them to go to Jerusalem.  Another option is Astronomy Notes but I personally like the first one.  It's written by a committed Christian, and it has a good explanation for deviating from the more common dating.  His approach is from the assumption that the Bible is a reliable historical record, and I appreciate that too.

Regardless of which explanation you prefer, neither one really gets at the inability of the people of Israel to respond to the arrival of their Messiah.  If such signs were in the sky at the time, how did no one but these foreigners spot it?  Why, when told of it, did no one else from there go to see Him?  All of Jerusalem was troubled at the announcement of the Magi, but not enough to go see what it was about?

This troubles me because I fear I could be one of those, caught missing the signs, caught hearing of them but remaining warm in my cozy home, caught missing the wonder of my Master and His visitation.  That would be a crime of astronomical proportions.  The only one to seek Jesus after the Magi was Herod in an attempt to kill Him.  I don't want to be one of the comfortable scribes who stays home. 

So, what do I do to avoid such a pitfall?  I keep on watch, like Jesus said repeatedly.  The problem is that "guard duty" is boring, and I get tired doing that.  My mind wanders and I stop looking for what started out seeking.  Instead I am consumed by distractions.  But guards have a trick for this.  What I did when I had such duty in the Army was to do something that wasn't quite so distracting, and kept my attention in the right direction.  The key is make sure that whatever you do to stay awake, also makes it likely you will not miss something coming into your area.  So how do I do that?

Probably a vital key is the study of Scripture, but that's what the "scribes" did for a living.  Another vital part is prayer, which those asked by Herod for the location were apt to do frequently.  Worship is another thing which cannot be neglected, but these were the "high priests" which meant that worship was a professional duty as well as a religio-cultural obligation.  I must have or do something more.

Submission.  The error into which these fell was their subordination of what they did to themselves rather than to their Master.  They didn't mean to, it was never their intent.  They were probably not aware they had done it.  But when the message they sought came from outside their "paradigm" they were not able to make the shift to accept and act on it.  I need the paradigm in which I subordinate my study, prayer, and worship to the methods of my Master rather than require Him to use my "preferred" methods.  Messy.  Well, here we go into this day.  What will my Master show me, and through whom?

The Point of the Stories

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.  And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.  But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.  "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."  Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:  "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."  And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. (Matthew 1:18-25 NASB)

Why compress 80+ verses of Luke into 7? The easiest and most obvious reason is that Luke and Matthew each made the same point from different perspectives.  The point in this abbreviated narrative is that Jesus was not born of Joseph and Mary, but to Joseph and Mary.  It's the same point made by Luke in his 80+ verses of Luke 1 and 2.  The reason this is an important point is the union of deity and humanity that is Jesus; He's the Son of God.  If He were the product of Joseph and Mary, He wouldn't be divine.  He's not "some guy from Nazareth", He's the Eternally Existent Son of God; He just happens to have grown up in Nazareth.

But there is more difference here than compression of Luke's account.  Joseph is mentioned here as a very involved party, which is very different than Luke.  The plan to "send her away secretly" is an element that is missing from Luke, but must have happened in the Jewish culture.  The way God speaks to Joseph consistently through an angel in dreams is another missing element from Luke.  Clearly, here the perspective is Joseph as Luke's is Mary.  So, enough with the obvious, what's the point?

Of the several points possible from this observation, I think my Master is pulling on me in one.  Any work of my Master is multidimensional, and requires the help of others to understand.  I need both accounts to understand better the work of my Master in bringing salvation to me and everyone else.  Why?  Wasn't Luke's long, involved, beautiful, and detailed account enough?  No, Joseph was missing.  How about this abbreviated version, wasn't that enough?  No, the difficulties and joy of Mary are missing.

Mary is such a prominent figure, especially in the death of Jesus that to leave her out would leave a huge hole in any understanding of Jesus' divine origins.  Joseph is so left out of Luke's account that without Matthew's I might suspect that he wasn't really involved or knew nothing about it at all, which would be very unlike my Master.  I would know nothing of Magai if all I knew were shepherds.  I would know nothing of Shepherds if all I knew were Magai.  The lowly arrival is in Luke, the royal reception is in Matthew.  The connection of Jesus to the life of the people of Israel and their history is only complete between the two accounts, not with either one or the other.

So, why would it surprise me that the work of my Master around me takes more to understand than my meager perspective?  Why would it perplex me that my Master brought a lot of people to this place rather than just me?  The story of how my family was brought to this place is not unique at all.  I don't get it, the reason we were brought here, and why should I expect I would get it without the added understanding of others?  I have my piece, my perspective, but I need the perspective of others to truly see the hands of my Master at work.  It's knot-hole theology as a model for life (one of these days, I'll actually define knot-hole theology in this blog).

What should be clear but because of pride, self-focus, and fear isn't, is that my Master has created me and His world to require multiple human creatures together to relate to Him.  If I am honest with what I read in Scripture, I don't find people living their lives with God alone.  Abraham didn't, David didn't, not one of the prophets (even Elijah found out he didn't), and not even Jesus.  So, if all these required others because of how my Master related to them, why should I believe otherwise?  The only reason is that I've let my American, self-reliant culture impose a requirement on me rather than accept my Masters.

The answer to this dilemma is to get involved with others and learn from them.  Others, who disagree with me, don't love my perspectives like I do, have problems I don't, don't have problems I do, and constantly want what they want rather than what I want; these are the ones on whom I'm dependent.  Ironically, they are also dependent on me.  I complain about how dependent I have to be, whining about others, when what I need to be doing is focusing on how dependable I am for them!  But what about me?  What about me?  The question "about me" needs to be, "do I want to know my Master or not?"  Because if I do want to know Him, He requires my interaction with others to gain His multidimensional perspective.  Oh my heavens, I've just defined "knot-hole theology".  I need the "knot-hole" view of others to to better understand the whole "scene" of my Master.  Okay, later I'll work up a more involved definition, but that will suffice as a "knot-hole" view for now.  I have people to listen to and learn from...so do you, I'll warrant.

Numbers in Matthew 1

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:14 NASB)

I remember as a kid when I was either scared by a surprising person jumping out of a closet or doing so myself and scaring someone else.  It was fun.  And inevitably, the scared party would ask, "Why did you do that?"  I don't know why we ask when we know exactly why, it's fun.  But we ask anyway, and the answer is usually, "I don't know," even when we do.  The look on the scared party's face is worth any trouble we may get into.  It's fun.

So I wonder, when the Apostle Matthew includes this reference in his abbreviated  genealogical list, if he's having some fun.  Notice he never explains it, just puts it in there.  There are a many offers of reasons for his reference, but none that are not speculation.  The only indisputable fact is that he makes the statement but refuses to explain it.  I think he did it because it was interesting to him, not vitally important. 

For instance, Luke takes his genealogy from Adam through, and the "fourteen" generational reference falls down somewhat.  There were not "fourteen generations" from Adam to the flood, and fourteen from the flood to Abraham.  So, his reference is very specific to the selection of the Jews by God.  That's where the "calendar" of Jewish life basically begins, with Abraham.

Just to be sure, I ran a search on 14 all through the Hebrew Scriptures, and found a repeated reference using 14 in Numbers 29.  There a sacrifice for the day of atonement festival immediately following the festival of trumpets.  There 14 lambs are to be offered fifteen days in a row.  The number of bulls decreases each day of the festival, but the lambs and goats remain the same; as does the grain offering to accompany each animal.

There is one other reference, in Genesis 46, where the children of children are listed, and those from Rachel are numbered at 14.  So, Benjamin and Joseph together with their children number fourteen.  That sound remotely like this reference, except that Rachel's children are not included in the genealogy of Jesus, and it is about total people not generations between events.  Really the only points of contact are the Jewish context and that it involves people born to someone.

I suppose my point really is that this reference is interesting, but not important.  Much can be made of counting words or letters in Hebrew or Greek text, counting this or that in some remote corner of Scripture or even out in common texts.  But in reality, I suspect that it all amounts to this: interesting, but not important.  I doubt very seriously that some hard-nosed atheist is going to shed his tenaciously held belief because he can count the generations between Abraham, David, the Jewish Exile, and Jesus.  I doubt that counting words or letters in Esther would achieve any such result either.  It's just not that important.

What is important is that Jesus was born of Mary while she was still a virgin.  His birth fulfilled many prophetic writings, more than even the prophets really understood.  The birth of Jesus was the unfathomable amalgamation of humanity and divinity, holy and common, omnipotence and frailty.  The birth of Jesus was the watershed event that altered human history leading to eventual salvation from all that separates us from our Creator.  Holding the manger in tension with the cross and empty tomb are the important things.  Holding the Child in tension with the King of Kings is the important thing.  It's not how many or of what, it's the One saving us and forming stars.

From Zero to Hero, and From Hero to Zero

But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, and said, "You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord?   Now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time." And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand.   Then the proconsul believed when he saw what had happened, being amazed at the teaching of the Lord.   Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; but John left them and returned to Jerusalem. (Acts 13:9-13 NASB)

Until this time, the character of Saul has followed everyone else in lists.  He was listed with impressive people, but while fade into obscurity, his name changes and suddenly everyone's hanging around him.  The timing is before a Roman proconsul with the same name, Paul, and as Saul/Paul confronts a false prophet.  From then on his name is Paul.

But the change is without fanfare or comment on the change.  Saul aka Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazes at the false prophet.  There's no comment on the connection between the names (it seems to be euphonic only). The companions of Paul travel from Paphos to Perga.  There's no explanation of why Barnabas is no longer taking point, or why it's not "Paul and Barnabas" at this point.  Paul seems to have eclipsed everyone.

I notice a few things here that I find interesting.  First off, there's no record that Barnabas has a problem with this.  This guy has been a true encouragement all along, and now he sees a "protege" of his taking flight.  Well, something like that perhaps.  For whatever reason, it seems that he is willing to relent, to give up that prime position without a fuss.  It may not have even been an issue really, just felt like a natural progression.  But does it mean anything that Barnabas is from Cyprus; that he sells a field from there?  It doesn't seem to.

I suppose that these changes that my Master brings about are to be acceptable to me as well.  Like Barnabas, I should be willing to take a one-down on issues, be willing to fade into the background.  This week I have had to eat a bit of crow, and I have to admit, I didn't like the taste.  The way I could have avoided it was to just let things be, or at least ask around before assuming I knew what was happening.  I was prideful and in a hurry.  Barnabas does not seem burdened with that problem.  He's not really in a hurry, and he does not seem prideful.

I mention this because I believe that my Master has given me both the gift and the task of encouragement.  I am constantly amazed at how ineffective such a gift is when I full of myself.  It actually works in reverse and I discourage.  So I myself am naturally discouraging, but my Master has gifted me in an area I am naturally weak and given me the job of encouraging.  So, like Barnabas, I am to be an encourager.  Like Barnabas, I am supposed to build people up.  But like Barnabas, that's not going to happen if I don't take the time to shed my pride and take time to be present with those I am called to encourage. 

If I want to stand back and watch a "Paul" emerge onto the stage, I have to be willing to stand back.  But even before that, I have to be willing to go through the transition from leading and guiding to following and supporting.  If I'm not willing to do that, I'm never going to see what my Master will do with the amazing people with whom I serve.  I have to be willing to go from zero to hero, but also from hero to zero.  It must be my Master who designates who and for how long he makes the hero.  It is my job to submit to His designation for however long He designates.

Pardon me, I think I heard the oven ding.  My humble pie must be finished.  Gotta go, it's breakfast.

The Unsung Martyr

Now about that time Herod the king laid hands on some who belonged to the church in order to mistreat them.   And he had James the brother of John put to death with a sword. (Acts 121-2 NASB)

Why is there no Gospel or Epistle by John's brother?  The Gospel of Mark is attributed to information from the Apostle Peter, as are two other letters.  The Apostle John is responsible for the Gospel of John, Revelation, and three letters. Where is the work of the Apostle James?  The other "Son of Thunder" is silent in the Scriptures.

When a deacon is forever silenced, he is given two chapters in the story of the early church.  His entire speech to his accusers is included.  The method of his execution, his last words, and some connection to the Pharisee Saul is included.  The persecution of the church throughout Judea is tied to this death.  So much pivots on this event, it's like a "watershed" event for the early church everywhere.

The brother of John, one of the inner circle of Jesus, the "other son of Zebedee" is given little ink in the Scriptures.  Most of what is in the Gospels lists him before his brother John, but there are not direct quotes (the closest being when he and John both request the seats of honor at Jesus' throne, and when they ask Jesus if he wants them to call fire down on the Samaritans).  He makes every list of the Apostles in every Gospel as second to Peter, yet when Paul mentions that he went to Jerusalem, only Peter, John, and James the brother of Jesus are included.  Why is there so little of this man in Acts?

No explanation is given why so little information is given.  Perhaps Luke didn't have much.  There isn't a lot in Apocryphal literature either, so maybe there just wasn't much to work with (even to make up).  The summation of the life of one of the major apostles is one sentence, except for one other comment, also often missed.  Herod notices that the death of John's brother pleases the people.  Not only is little written of this man, but when he does go, the people are glad.  Granted, the "people" aren't believers, but no mention of prayers going up for him are mentioned either.  I mention that because Luke specifically says prayers are being made for Peter.

In the absence of much in the way of data, what can I piece together about this great person who gets so little ink, who is the first of the Twelve to die for their Master?  Probably, if I combed through every mention of him in the Gospels, I might be able to surmise something of what happened here, but I doubt it.  So much changed after Jesus' resurrection and the day of Pentecost.  Trying to compare the account of James in the Gospels and then in this point in time in Luke would be impossible. 

I will point out one other thing though, and that is how Peter seems to have declined in prominence as Acts progresses.  Perhaps the role of the "Twelve" changes after the death of Stephen.  Peter is in charge, until Stephen is killed.  Once persecution hits the church, James the brother of Jesus seems to take over.  It's an odd thing, but I then wonder if these who hold the memory of direct contact with Jesus were sidelined, at least in leading the church.  Perhaps the decline in the prominence of this brother of John follows the same track, so this death is less impressive or important to the church than it would have been earlier on, perhaps before Stephen.

So, here's the lesson I draw from this:  Can I accept such a minor footnote after I'm gone?  It's really a dumb question since how would I know or why would I care (I'm hanging with my Master)?  But as I go, as the sword becomes a reality of my end, can I accept the little note in passing?  Or will I try to create drama, draw attention to myself, to "rail against the dying of a life"; will I seek to make it about me at the end?  Can I be content with so little?

Consider this, he is the only one of the Twelve who's death is mentioned in Scripture.  Also, he receives more ink in Acts than the other 9 (John gets to take a trip to Samaria, so he's got more ink, and obviously Peter has a bunch).  The other 9 are barely mentioned.  Even Matthias is given more ink than James, just not after he's an apostle.  In fact, I don't think the other 9 are mentioned (Matthias after he's an apostle).  The twelve men who had the whole story, and they're not even given a place of great prominence.

My point is that there are lots of people who have done and been more than I can ever hope to be, who have had much more influence than I can ever hope to have, but who get no ink at all.  So, once again, it's not about the ink, or rather it's not about me.  It will always be about my Master.  It wasn't this unsung martyr who is the main character in this story, it is instead the One he was a witness about.  It isn't about me, as whatever witness I am, but about my Master of Whom I am to be a witness. 

James the brother of John died as I should, only as a mark to a greater story in which my Master reigns as the main Character.  His only claim to fame is to set the scene for Peter's capture and release.  The first of the apostles to go, and here he is merely "set dressing".  I can expect even less.  Perhaps I'll be the guy with the broom cleaning the stage afterwards; not even in the program, just a guy in coveralls working in dim silence among empty chairs and discarded paper.  The question is will I accept such a role from my Master, the Star, Director, and Producer of the play?  You know, come to think of it, I've been meaning to get a push broom.  This could be good for me. 

A World Chaning Lesson

When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." (Acts 11:18 NASB)

This verse is the beginning of an enormous paradigm shift for the Jewish believers in Jerusalem.  The survival of Jews everywhere in the Roman Empire was made possible by the Roman law exempting them from required worship of the gods (it was considered atheism - ironic isn't it?).  This law was one of the things that made it possible for Jews to pursue holiness among Gentiles, which is obviously important in any relationship with God.  The pursuit of this holiness among Gentiles in the first century focused on two things primarily, circumcision and keeping the Sabbath.  Jesus took issue with this pursuit this way lots of times

Essentially, the Jews had defined holiness by being Jew, not by their behavior so to speak.  In other words, someone could be a cheat, liar, mean spirited, and cruel, but as long as they were a Jew, kept the Sabbath, and had been circumcised, they were still holy.  The Jews acceptability before God had been subjugated under their distinction from Gentiles.  They figured if they had the one, they automatically had the other.  Jesus said different and really upset people (and by "people" I mean religious leaders).  This is the cultural context in which comes the realization that "God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." 

So what's a Gentile believer to do?  They aren't a Jew, so they are exempt from the atheism law.  Any guild through which they would gain employment had a patron god/goddess worshiped as part of their practices, so how could they keep their jobs?  They would quickly become illegal and unemployed in their Gentile culture.  How does a Gentile hold Jesus as Lord, believing in His resurrection from the dead, and get along in life?  It gets complicated very quickly.

A great number of Gentiles "liked" the Jewish faith in Yahweh, yet found it unreasonable to convert to Judaism (I mean, there was surgery involved - seriously, who wants that?).  So they attended the Jewish Synagogues.  They couldn't participate in what went on, but they could hear the Law and pray.  Cornelius was such a Gentile.  But not all the Gentiles who received the good news of Jesus were "God-fearing Gentiles".  The Philippian Jailer for instance did not have a Synagogue to attend even if he were a God-fearing Gentile.  There was still a cultural barrier for Gentiles that had enormous ramifications for them.

So, later on, when Jews "of the Circumcision" show up in Antioch later, even Peter and Barnabas find they are not immune to their peer pressure to disassociate with Gentiles.  These teachers Paul found so dangerous he wished they would "mutilate" themselves rather than teach the requirement of circumcision to please God (Galatians 5:12).  Paul makes some very bold statements to the believers struggling with whether or not to become Jews as well as Christians.  He tells them that if they do, they essentially loose their salvation in Jesus (Galatians 5:2-4).

So the "paradigm shift" in Acts 11:18 either did not last long, or was not passed on to others who later joined "the circumcision".  This is the lesson and warning I gain from this passage.  Sure I need to be careful not to seek acceptance to my Master by what I do.  That is clear.  But what may be missed is that this lesson must be passed on.  It's not enough to expect other believers to "catch" the lesson as we "fellowship".  For the benefit of the church, the benefit to newer believers, and the glory of my Master, this lesson must be passed on.

Here's what I mean, any casual observer of Christian behavior can easily assume that we seek to be "holy" in our behavior so that we can be acceptable to God.  When in reality, we seek to be holy in our behavior in response to our Master's acceptance.  That may sound like a semantic differentiation to make, but it's actually huge.  The very understanding of salvation, and therefore a relationship with the Maker of the universe hangs on this distinction.  Any assumption that human creatures can do anything to be acceptable to the Maker of stars and quarks is a failure of faith and will not save that creature.  We must pass on the truth of "unconditional election" of any relationship with our Master.  He elects (chooses) us, we respond to that divine choice.  That's it.  There can be nothing else.

Think about it, we are saved by grace, through faith, and even that is a gift of God!  How can there be any action on our part that somehow entitles us to a relationship with the Master of all matter?  What could we possibly do that could get His attention?  Do we seriously expect that we can somehow be "good enough" that He will stop forming a star in some corner of the universe and pay attention to us?  What hope can we have to somehow impress One who forms quarks out of nothing, then organizes them into atoms, arranges those into molecules, and connects those molecules into a pattern that lives and breathes?  Seriously, what are we going to do to impress such a Person?  Go ahead, ride your unicycle, trim an appendage of your body, refrain from eating certain things, whatever.  It won't work.  He will still say He never knew you.

The lesson is that we have nothing with which to "pay" for our salvation, nothing to bargain with for a relationship with God.  The joy of the lesson is that we don't need anything either.  Consider this, the Maker of stars and quarks wants to have this relationship with me.  I don't have to earn it.  I'm so busy trying to get his attention that I miss the joy of the attention I already have.  Pity me!  But remember that it is my selfish heart, my self-focused "paradigm" that drives me to this "performance" mentality.  I have to accept the humiliation of my condition before my Master in order to then receive the glorification of His transformation of me.  I am the wonder (whatever wonder) that I am only because of the grace and mercy of my Master.  I didn't work for it, He gave it to me.  The wonder that I am (the only wonder that I am) is the wonder of my Master; the Wonder of His grace in accepting one such as me, the Wonder of His mercy in pursuing me when I ran from Him, the Wonder of His power in transforming me to make me fit for His heaven.

So, now, the life I now live in the body I live by faith in the One who loves me and has given Himself up for me.  But I can only live such a life if I have been and continue to be crucified with Jesus, and I no longer live.  It's is a resurrected life that my Master wants for me.  So, here I go, it's time for this "zombie" to obey my Master.

No, Seriously, What's Really Bothering You?

Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.  And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them." (Acts 11:1-3 NASB)

When Jesus ministers on earth, several of his most poignant services are to Gentiles.  For instance, Matthew records the centurion who came to Jesus asking that his servant be healed, but only that Jesus say so, not that he come to the centurion's house.  Jesus makes an interesting comment in this account (Mat. 8:11-12) where He says that "many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness"

You might be led to believe that Jesus was referring to Gentiles.  After all, the context was His comment on the faith of a Gentile.  Yet, we find that Jesus' disciples seem to miss this reference, even after His resurrection, after the filling by the Spirit on Pentecost, and after Jesus tells them to spread His good news to the ends of the earth.  So, why the confusion?  Perhaps it lies in that there was an assumption that the disciples carried with them as they heard these words, saw these things, and looked around them to follow suit.

Those in Jerusalem in this passage are referred to as "the circumcision" (literally, "the ones from out of circumcision").  It is an odd designation to give to disciples in Jerusalem.  It gives the impression that it doesn't refer to all of the disciples, but to some.  Yet weren't they all Jews?  Why refer to some of them as "from out of circumcision"?  I suspect that this group was marked by views that were specifically tied to this distinguishing feature of Judaism.  It was one of two that marked Jews distinctly from the people around whom they lived.

When they hear of Gentiles receiving the word of God, they go to Peter, but ask a different question.  It's not that Gentiles heard the word of God.  It's not that Gentiles had faith in Jesus.  Their issue is that Peter ate with the Gentiles.  He had crossed a line of demarcation between the Jews and Gentiles.  He had ignored a separation that this group held sacred.  An assumption is revealed:  To come to God through Jesus, one must first be a Jew.  Peter's testimony reveals that God has accepted these Gentiles as they are without requiring them to separate from the rest of the Gentile world into Judaism.  Suddenly the comment made by Jesus that many would come from the east and west and that the children of the Kingdom would not takes on a more dire meaning.

Two thousand years later, it's easy to look back at these people and scoff.  But don't I do that?  Don't I assume that my Master only accepts people like me?  Seriously, if I don't go to all sorts of people, (and I live around all sorts of people) then am I really declaring that my Master calls and draws people of all sorts?  Or is it that I really want to reach people like me, people in my comfort zone who are easy for me to talk with?  It is difficult for me to say that I believe as Jesus said, that many will come from all over (east and west, not just west) and dine in the Kingdom of my Master, yet withhold myself from those from all over.

I admit that I hear of the work of my Master and rejoice.  That's good.  These of the circumcision didn't, so I'm better off right?  And this issue isn't over for them, they cause trouble over and over throughout Acts.  So, I'm totally better off, am I not?  I'm not.  I'm can't speak for you, but I can tell you that I haven't gone to the weird people around me.  I can tell you that those around whom I'm not comfortable, I keep quiet about the amazing truth in which I live.  Jesus, the Maker and Sustainer of this universe, loves me.  But He loves them too.  They need to know that.  They may reject the knowledge, but they need to at least hear it to reject it.  I've kept quiet.  Shame on me.

I Was Praying...

On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. (Acts 10:9 NASB)

Cornelius said, "Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour; and behold, a man stood before me in shining garments, (Acts 10:30 NASB)

Prayer seems to frame hearing from my Master.  I do need to study the Scriptures, but I also need to pray.  Study comes easy to me and I really enjoy it.  But I also need the adoration and worship of my Master through prayer.  I need to place myself at His feet, bow my proud heart, and acknowledge the truly Awesome One.

So that's what I've been doing for the bulk of my study/devotional time.  So, this is short.  Your welcome.

Warming Up the Light Bulb

While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you.  But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself." (Acts 10:19-20 NASB)

And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.  That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me." (Acts 10:28-29 NASB)

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." (Acts 10:34-35 NASB)

  In our culture, we say that "the light bulb finally went on" to mean that we finally understood something.  It's an idiom that comes from the invention of the light bulb by Thomas Edison.  What is implied, but often missed is that understanding is often progressive.  Thomas Edison didn't just invent the light bulb while working on something else.  He had tried many times and eventually came up with the right mixture of elements and circumstances to make the filament glow.  Sometimes, that is how my understanding of my Master seems to happen.  Peter seems to have experiences like that as well.

The word translated "misgivings" in verse 20 is a Greek compound word of the preposition "through" and the verb "to judge".  In other words, the Holy Spirit didn't want Peter to decide through his own judgment whether to go with the men or not.  Peter had not "turned the corner" yet in his understanding of the vision he just had, so he was being prompted in his progress.  He asks the men at the gate, "why are you seeking me?"  He is seeking to progress his own understanding.  He wants the light bulb to go on.  But it doesn't just yet.

Once he reaches Cornelius' house, he still is not quite clear except that he is supposed to be there, the Holy Spirit said so.  So, he again seeks some clarity.  He asks for the context of this summons.  He wants the puzzle pieces he is missing.  He seeks the glowing filament.  Yet, it glows faintly already.  Peter says that he has been told not to call "any man unholy or unclean."  The bulb glows faintly because he has attached his vision of animals for food to people for association.  He has made that much of the connection, but he is still missing some parts to the puzzle.  How far will God take this acceptance of Gentiles?

The account details that Cornelius gives Peter completes his picture to a degree (more comes before he finishes his sermon).  As much understanding as he has, the light bulb glows.  Now he is able to understand that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob now accepts the sons of Ham and Japheth.  It was difficult to finally understand and accept, but Peter finally reaches that conclusion.

How often am I so in the dark about the character of my Master that I miss what He is doing around me?  How long does it take for the light bulb to go on over my head?  Why does it take so long sometimes?  And what can I do to help it along in the progression?  Well, first off, way too often unfortunately.  Sometimes however long it takes to finally discuss something with a fellow believer.  Usually because I really like my own ideas, and am not really ready to test them with others.  Currently I have a group to field this stuff with so I have fellow believers who evaluate my opinions and help me gain clarity.  But that only helps for some things.

There are other pieces of understanding that only come through obedience to the part I do know.  Peter had to obey by going with the strangers in order to discover the rest of the story.  If he didn't leave Joppa until he had a complete picture, he never would have left.  I have to obey the parts I do know in order to reach a better understanding of the pieces I don't.  Sometimes it will be in retrospect, sometimes in the midst of the obedience, sometimes it won't come at all.  Since my understanding really is the progression of my Master revealing His character and will to me, I only get as much as He wants me to know.

So the combination of seeking the wisdom of others and obedience to the part I know makes up my progression to "illumination".  For the light bulb to go on for me, I need help, and I need to be faithfully obedient in the progression.  I need to let the bulb warm up some times.  And I have to be willing to accept as much light as my Master gives me.  It bewilders and shames me that I am so content to be so dim sometimes.  Time to jump in and mix it up!  Get dirty and discover more truth!  Weee!

Cultural Barriers to Jesus

On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.  But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.  A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"  But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."  Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."  This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. (Acts 10:9-16 NASB)

 An important characteristic of Jesus that gets mentioned, but not understood, is that Jesus entered the world as a Jewish man.  Modern Christians will agree, but modern Judaism obscures what that really means.  First Century, Second Temple, Judean Judaism is not what we see today.  I haven't asked a rabbi, but I'm pretty sure they would agree.  There are tremendous cultural differences between the various Jewish groups  today; and even more differences between those of the region and time of Jesus and now.  So trying to understand Jesus as Jewish man is difficult when the understanding is attempted through modern Judaism.

In a sense through, one aspect that remains the same is a "survivor" mentality that doggedly holds Jewish groups together and attempts to rigorously maintain their distinctness from other cultures among which they may live.  In First Century Judea, the fairly recent history had seen the end of oppression of the Jews by Seleucid Greeks who attempted to force them to adopt Greek culture.  It had witnessed the inability of the Jewish religious leadership to also govern the people well.  It had recorded how the Romans were invited into the country to stabilize the region.  And, in the days of, and just beyond, Jesus' earthly ministry, the attempted rebellion of the Jews against the Roman presence in the land.

Part of the consistent thread that held these people together is their persistence in being distinct from those they lived among.  The end of the First Temple Era eradicated syncretistism (mixed religious practice) which included idols from their culture.  That was never a problem again.  In the first century, the main focus of the Jews was survival of their race and traditions.  In that focus, they made some mistakes.  In these mistakes, they lost sight of their true King.  By the time He showed up in person, they were not ready.  It wasn't until after He left that many seemed to understand or at least accept Jesus as the true Anointed One of God.

One of the biggest struggles Jesus faced was the continued pressure from the religious leaders to conform to their traditions.  He consistently refused in many respects.  In other respects, he conformed already.  I suspect that in what He ate, He conformed.  But He also taught His disciples that "unclean" was really a characteristic coming from within a person, not from outside (Mark 7:14-23).  There the issue was "hand washing" rather than specific food, but the writer notes that Jesus declared all foods "clean".

So why, having had that lesson, does Peter hang so tightly to the isolationist practices of his people?  I'm not sure, but I suspect there at least two reasons.  The first is that those traditions were what he knew and was familiar with.  There seemed no good reason to leave them when they were Scriptural (i.e. in the law).  In some sense, if it's not broken, why fix it?"  What he was about to learn is that it was broken in one way.

I suspect that another, possibly unconscious, reason is that Judaism was legal in Roman society where the belief in Jesus as Messiah was not.  Romans permitted other beliefs as long as their requirement of venerating the emperor was also practiced along with what ever belief was held.  Followers of Jesus could not do that.  Their only protection from the requirement was their attachment to Judaism which was exempt from the practice.  This is never given as a reason in Scripture, it would need to be derived from an examination of the culture in which Christianity was born and grew.  It may have been more in the mind of Paul in Europe than in Peter in Joppa. 

This chapter does make one thing very clear though.  The lesson of the animals in the sheet was not about eating, it was about cultural barriers to salvation.  That wasn't obvious to Peter at first because he didn't have the context in which to understand it.  He needed Cornelius' story to point out to Him that God had already accepted this Gentile soldier occupying Judea.  Once he had that, he was able to connect the dots, and saw a new characteristic of God, that He accepts people outside of Jews.  Judaism itself became understood as an unnecessary barrier to a relationship with the Maker of galaxies and atoms; a dangerous proposition in that day.

So where's the lesson for me?  I set up my own barriers to others by my cultural practices.  I chose who I associate with based on social position, economic status, and my perception of safe and prudent practices.  That is not the path on which I see my Master taking and leading His people.  Instead, my Master crosses those boundaries of economics and society.  He reaches into the lives of those left behind and marginalized by their culture.  This is a difficult, very uncomfortable, lesson for me.  I don't enjoy hugging someone who smells.  But don't I smell?  Am I more acceptable to my Master than those with whom I am uncomfortable associating?  I don't think so, and yet I do believe so.  I behave that way.  And I do so to my own disgrace.

I suspect the only way out of this is by practicing crossing those boundaries.  I need to.  I have a lesson to learn through practice.  I don't like those, those character-building-lessons my Master seems to like so much.  Well, I guess I need to go.  It seems I have "homework" to do.

Saving Lost Souls, my Master's Work

And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. Now dispatch some men to Joppa and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter; he is staying with a tanner named Simon, whose house is by the sea."
 When the angel who was speaking to him had left, he summoned two of his servants and a devout soldier of those who were his personal attendants, and after he had explained everything to them, he sent them to Joppa. (Acts 10:4-8 NASB)

Just when I think I've thought something through pretty well, another thinker asks a question I hadn't considered.  One issue I have avoided with Acts 10 is a discussion on whether or not, and when, if so, was Cornelius "saved".  In other words, had an earthquake hit Caesaria before the angel arrived, and Cornelius perished, would he have gone to heaven?  The reason I ask is because the angel begins with, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God."  How is that possible if he has no relationship with God?

When I unpack that possibility, I thought that I had at least a partial answer for those asking about people in foreign lands who have never heard the gospel of Jesus.  To be clear, any discussion at this point using this text is conjecture for any position.  The text inspired by my Master does not address this point except to say, that my Master will draw those seeking Him.  Beyond that, we really know nothing because He hasn't told us.  That being said, I did wander into the realm of conjecture, presented my particular view, and was asked a very important question.

My opinion is that God will initiate a relationship with unlikely people in unlikely places without His people being involved, and therefore knowing nothing about it.  That means these people may have no contact with those who know the good news of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Instead these may simply relate to the One responsible for everything in the world to the degree they are aware of it.

So, the question asked me was about other religions and other "denominations" within "Christianity".  I hadn't really gone there in my thinking.  So, the way I grappled with it was to point out that Cornelius left the religious beliefs he was born to, those popular in the Roman army, and instead adopted the one of an unruly people who hated him.  He clearly sought the God of all, in spite of serious barriers to that quest.  It's not about being sincerely devout to whatever religion, but rather leaving all other belief systems that worship someone other than the One having created all and seeking His creatures.  Other religions don't really teach that.

The problem about other denominations had to do with the constant bickering and infighting among those claiming to be followers of Jesus in the world.  The answer I came up with was that attitudes inconsistent with Jesus probably are not from His followers, regardless of what label they choose.  Here's why: If I am convinced someone is going to spend eternity apart from God in hell (i.e. going to die an eternal death), why would I attack them?  If I know someone is going to die of cancer, I don't start beating them and treating them like trash!  How can I, being convinced of my own eternal life, turn and mistreat those whom I am convinced are dead and dying eternally?  That's crazy!  I'm supposed to be helping them live, not helping them die, not if I am truly a child of the One who gave me life!

The other part of my response to the "denomination" question pointed out that under persecution, differences are put aside.  We bicker in the West because we're safe, at least for now.  At some point we may not be, and church as we know it will begin to vanish.  What will be in its place will be much less concerned with petty differences of Scriptural interpretation, and more concerned with spreading the good news of Jesus, and worshiping Him.  It may not be so easy to do this in the future we're heading into.  In countries outside the West, third world countries and so on, the focus of churches is much different that in the West.  They have other more pressing problems than "legalism".  Often they're fortunate to have any Scripture at all regardless of the "translation", and have no opinion at all about which translation should be used.

So, while I had assumed I had thought through the issue of my Master's work to save remote souls, it turns out I hadn't really gone far enough with it.  No relationship with God, even in remote parts of the world, negates or denies the work of my Master in Jesus, reconciling His creation back to Himself.  But I also suspect that the work of my Master in Jesus to reconcile His creation back to Himself is effective for some who have no idea of the details.  But this also excludes those holding competing beliefs about God, salvation, and Jesus.  We don't get to chose the path to our Creator, He chooses a path to us, and we must trust Him and His choice.

The Rest of the Story

 "The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all) -- you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed.  You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.  We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross.  God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead."  (Acts 10:36-41 NASB)

I had this great idea to look at how Peter kept saying, "you know" as he speaks to the Gentiles in Cornelius' house.  But he doesn't; which really puts a kink in wanting to discuss how much the assembled Gentiles knew of Jesus and His ministry.  Actually what he says boils down to, "you know about the public ministry of Jesus, but not even Paul Harvey has the rest of the story, just us."

Peter's point is made beginning with what they already know, then taking them to Who Jesus really turned out to be.  The crucifixion was public knowledge, but the resurrection was not.  By adding the resurrection to what they already knew Peter transformed a story of a good person into the story of the Christ.  With some understanding of Judaism, perhaps the Scriptures, the story of the Jewish Messiah would be one with which they were somewhat familiar.

Perhaps that is what is needed in the life of a believer, the transformation of what we know about God.  It's one thing to know the stories.  I love the stories in the Bible.  But who are the stories about?  They are about my Master, not David, Peter, Paul, or the Jews.  Until the words of the Bible are transformed for me into the story of the Messiah, the Christ, I will not have the "rest of the story" and I will be continually missing something. 

I feel like I'm missing something about a lot of things.  I don't understand politics, I don't get the complexities of the economy.  I don't like studying these things, because they never seem to work like people describe.  I had a real estate guy tell me back in 2004 that the housing market in California would never go down.  I can only assume he has a different job now.  I watched the housing market in Fort Worth fight to experience the same sort of boom they had in other parts of the country, only to have it stabilize about where it had been for years.  Go figure.  I get the impression there is a lot that goes on that I am completely in the dark about.  And for most of it, I'm okay with that.

The hand of my Master does not sleep or tire.  He does not take a break from His care for this world, and His people in it.  Scripture tells me that He works through people and that He does extraordinary things.  But as I read Scripture, I also get the impression that I'm missing something.  Things in it don't seem to connect, yet my Master puts them together or says them both, or does them both.  There is a lot left to the "story" that I don't know.  So, what do I do?

I accept what I do know, and leave the rest to my Master.  After all, He is Master, who better to leave it with?  I suppose that is really the point of my Master.  The rest of His story remains His; His to reveal, or His to conceal.  So, I have lots to think about without concerning myself with what I don't know.  I know the One who does know.  That is enough.  As He reveals more, I will soak it up.  What He conceals I will do without.  There, the secret to life.  Well, that and where to find great pizza, those two things are the secret to life. 

The Progression of Understanding

And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.  That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me." (Acts 10:28-29 NASB)

 Why am I here?  It's a question raised once someone has time to think or reflect, usually on what's wrong in their life.  For one following the Creator of suns and quarks, it's a question typically uttered in prayer.  In Peter's case, the Master opened the discussion with him not waiting for the question.  I think it is the mark of the Great Teacher that the answer wasn't complete without obedience.

The linen is lowered with the unclean animals in it, and Peter is told to kill and eat, he says no, and is then told to not profane what God has sanctified.  This repeats itself 3 times (which resonates with Peter for obvious reasons), and then disappears into heaven.  But the context in which to understand this vision is missing.  That requires obedience.  Peter must go with strangers to a stranger's house.

Once he arrived, Peter really has only one question, "Why am I here?"  He knows that Cornelius holds the other piece of this puzzle which completes the context he needs.  What he discovers is that he holds the piece which will make all the other things the assembled people "already know" suddenly make sense (verses 36-43).  They have a context but no interpretation; he has interpretation without the proper context.  They need each other.

And so I have an example of the proper response to things that don't make sense, obedience.  This isn't that unusual actually.  When faced with peculiar situations, military training is to follow the last orders given.  That may sound simplistic, but once you see what an order looks like it will make more sense, they're pretty involved things.  It might make more sense to civilians to say, "continue with the mission."  This is good advice for followers of Jesus as well.

Sometimes church, the neighborhood or community, work, school, or family can throw a curve ball at me that I have to somehow hit with a stick of wood (or sometimes I'd like to hit with a piece of wood).  When faced with surprising, confusing, seemingly chaotic situations, my response should be like that of Peter, continue the mission, obey, in all things trust my Master.  That is probably the main theme of obedience in these situations, in all things trust my Master.

Of course, obedience requires knowing the orders in the first place.  I have to have read them.  Which means I have to have spent time in Scripture.  It also means I must spend time in prayer.  Often, the act of obedience really is prayer, or at least begins there.  So, that is where I go next.

Getting God's Attention

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. (Acts 10:34-35 NASB)

The Philippian jailer would eventually ask Paul, "What must I do to be saved?"  This is a very important question for which to have an answer.  The person of Cornelius presents an interesting twist on it.  I wonder at what point was Cornelius accepted by God as one of His family?  In other words, when was Cornelius no longer in danger of going to hell, and assured of going to heaven?

In the opening verse of this chapter, the angel of the Lord tells Cornelius that his prayers have been heard and his giving has ascended as a memorial before God.  Is this something characteristic of one going to hell?  Would God hear prayers and accept memorials from one who is not His own?  In my opinion, Peter's revelation is also mine.  I realize that those who fear my Master and do what is right (in other words, seek to obey Him) are acceptable to my Master.  There is no partiality with my Master.

To bring this into the present, those around me who look, speak, possibly smell different than I do are acceptable to my Master when they fear Him and seek to obey Him.  I am in no way able to classify people on what they look like, their accent, or where they live.  In some sense I can look at their behavior, but I have to be careful here.  Obedience to my Master will not look the same for everyone.

There are many different legitimate ways to worship my Master.  There are plenty of activities not expressly prohibited by Him or obliquely referred to by Him.  I may not want to do or behave that way, but I must be sure to evaluate on Scriptural grounds rather than personal preferences or my cultural behaviors.  Now, why ask this question?

I have been asked about "people who have never heard of God or Jesus" and how they can be held accountable for salvation.  Paul is pretty clear in Romans that the world has enough clues to God's existence that everyone is responsible before Him.  "So," goes the question, "what about someone who has never heard but responds to this evidence of God in this world?"  Well, at that point, is where I believe this concept in Acts 10 (and Acts 8 with the Ethiopian eunuch) kicks in.  This statement by Peter indicates the criteria, fear God and obey Him.

But I have to concede two points.  First off, both Cornelius and the Ethiopian official had already responded to the Judaism of their day.  In other words, they had embraced something "monotheistic" which had been revealed by God already.  Second, they were both brought into the fold of believers by having the good news of Jesus preached to them.  Even though these events were divinely appointed, Jesus is preached, and they accept. 

Here's my answer to both points: so what?  In the first point, the setting is Palestine, but neither one of these people is from there.  Seeking God would only be found through Judaism at this point; Christianity is local at this point.  The second point I discount because this is the only way they would be brought into this story.  Had either one remained apart from the influence of Jesus' followers, we wouldn't know of them.  What I believe addresses this issue in this account is that the angel tells Cornelius that he's acceptable to God before Jesus is preached to him and he accepts.

So here's the lesson I walk away with, it's not about me nor my ability.  People will not be coming to my Master in droves because of me.  People will seek my Master because of Him.  For whatever lack in their own lives and culture, the answer they find will be my Master.  I get so afraid that I will mess it up some how, that my foibles and weaknesses will be the downfall of someone else.  I don't even try or fear what to say because I don't want to mess up.  And I don't want to be thought of as some religious nut or looked down on for my beliefs, and so on it goes.  It's all a lot of hogwash; ridiculous hogwash.  All my excuses come down to one thing: me.  So, now I see conclusive proof (like I didn't have it before) that it's not about me at all.  See how stupid I am, how can I be trusted with the good news of Jesus if I'm such an idiot?  Simple, it's not about me.  Since I'm without excuses, I guess I need to start jumping into those conversations.

The Odd Man In

Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually. (Acts 10:1-2 NASB)

One of the purposes of Scripture is achieved through irony, in that it denies the expected, and affirms the unexpected. This is one of the great lessons from the Master of the universe to us about Himself.  It's as if the point He's trying to make with us is that we can't reach Him, He must reach us.  By that I mean that He cannot be comprehended by our minds or imaginations, so He has to teach us about Himself.  If He didn't, we'd never know Him.

One of the truly laughable aspects to philosophy when it seeks to grapple with theology (of any sort), is how rules that cannot be assumed to be true are.  The fundamental assumption is way too often that anything or anyone responsible for our universe should somehow fit within the bounds of our ability to rationally understand it/him/her.  It puts the philosopher in charge, and the Maker of the universe in the "hot seat" to be interviewed and judged.  Could anything be more ridiculous?  With all we don't understand and all we know we don't know, why then would we expect that anyone responsible for all of it should be knowable?

Here's my basic premise:  I'm looking for the One revealing Himself to me, and Who's revelation is inexplicable.  So, for instance, God revealing Himself in a "Trinitarian Nature" is the sort of thing that matches this criteria.  God requiring that any relationship with Him be on His terms, that meets this criteria.  That any relationship with Him is always initiated by Him...oh wait.  Well, in a sense that's true, but only in an oblique manner with Cornelius.

Cornelius comes from a polytheistic background, "family of origin", and culture.  That background and culture has rewarded him with position and responsibility.  He controls 100 soldiers who are Roman citizens by birth, and birth in Italy, the Roman homeland.  Yet, he is in the land of Jews, who dislike the Romans in the same way bulls dislike bull riders.  And with all the unmistakable animosity toward him and his people, his presence and role in that land, he still seeks to leave his religious paradigm and adopt theirs.  And he's not alone, because many of his household and soldiers follow him in this choice.  This is an irony.  I have to assume that there are some very important details left out which explain how he came to this point in religious life, but the point here is that he has arrived at this point in his religious life.

God takes this guy, who has overcome a lot of barriers, and essentially introduces Himself to him.  The Ethiopian on the road home is somewhat like this.  He too had to overcome tremendous barriers.  He sought God anyway, and God essentially introduced Himself to him as well.  Here's my question, would I seek to overcome such barriers?

I have been given every advantage to find Jesus.  He surrounded me from my birth.  I was taught about Him from my earliest memories.  Regardless of how accurate that teaching was (some was spot, some not), I was equipped to carry on and learn from Him directly, from Scripture.  I haven't had barriers except the ones of my own deceitful heart.  I haven't had difficulties in seeing my Master, He has always been around me.  And so, in some way, I have become complacent with my faith.  It's been easy.

This one who had no advantage except by accident of military assignment, goes against everything he has been taught and brought up on to seek this strange god from a strange unfriendly land.  I have always had my Master dropped in my lap, and encouraged to seek Him.  In fact, to not seek Him would be to go against my upbringing and everything I have  been taught my whole life.

So what would I have done in his situation?  Would I have overcome the barrier of my resentments toward those who hated me?  Would I have sought to worship their god, their way, and honor them with help for their poor?  Seriously?  How easy is my journey to the Maker and Sustainer of the universe?  How easily do I take it lazily, stray from it on a whim, and treat it like a stroll through a park?  I am way too often a poor soldier for my King.

I have struggled with the possibility I believe what I do because that's what I was taught.  There may be still some truth to that, but I have wrestled with my faith, and still it remains.  I am now struggling with the thought that my Master brought me through the route to Him that He did because He knew I wasn't up to a more difficult challenge.  That should humble me, and yet it should also encourage me.  Consider the love of the Master of atoms and suns that He would arrange it so I would find Him.  The same love that sought out Cornelius and arranged for him to be in Palestine among a contentious people of God, also placed me where I would find Him.

How is a relationship with the Master of all matter not initiated by Him?  How am I, in my foolish weaknesses, not in the same line to see Jesus that Cornelius is in?  My barriers have always been of my own making, and yet my Master has always brought me through them, much like Cornelius.  They are different barriers, but the same love.  The Ethiopian eunuch, the Roman soldier, and me...not what you might expect. 

Paradigm Shifting on the Fly

Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate; (Acts 10:17 NASB)

Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. (Acts 10:34-35 NASB)

All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. (Acts 10:45 NASB)

Another of the ironies in Acts 10 is the inability of Peter and those with him to conceive of Gentiles being acceptable to God.  The clues are all through all 4 Gospels, and one of my favorites is when Jesus is being interviewed by Nicodemus, the Pharisee.  In that conversation, Jesus cuts right to the point for the Pharisee when He says, "To enter the Kingdom of God, you must be born again."  We use that phrase in these days to mean something very different from what Jesus was getting at in this conversation.

For Nicodemus the Pharisee, his birth is what set him apart from all the other people on the earth; he was  born different, superior.  Being born a Jew meant that he was automatically tied to God by His sovereign choice.  What could be better than that; to be born into immediate acceptability before God?  So Jesus' words rocked Nicodemus, and I think that is why he struggle so much with what Jesus meant by that.

If human birth no longer is what determines acceptability before God, then Gentiles have as much opportunity as anyone else.  This point seems to be missed by the disciples.  I suppose the Ethiopian on his way home was at least a proselyte or something because Philip didn't seem to have a problem with him receiving the Holy Spirit. On the other hand it doesn't specifically say he ever did (but it also doesn't say whether he was a Jew, or a proselyte, or a native of Ethiopia at all).

The word translated "perplexed" is a Greek compound word made up of two prepositions and a verb.  It means "through not carrying over", as in "because of not making the connection" (carrying over referring to being carried across something, like the River Styx for a Greek).  So I think of it as "because of not being able to shift the paradigm" which is obviously a modern read on an ancient problem.  After the vision of the unclean animals in the linen vessel, Peter is struggling shifting his paradigm to include what he has seen and heard.  It isn't until he reaches Cornelius' house and hears his story that he finally makes the connection.

But Peter's companions from Joppa didn't get the vision, they hadn't heard the voice, and so they were completely unprepared for God receiving Gentiles in such a way.  They may even have been skeptical of Cornelius' story.  This catches them completely by surprise.  But why?  Weren't the clues around them?  What did Jesus tell them? "You will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and all the earth."  What did they think that meant anyway?

And there were other clues in the Hebrew Scriptures and so on.  Clearly the problem was how entrenched in their own Jewish culture they were.  Their paradigm wasn't constructed only from the Hebrew Scriptures or only from that and Jesus' teaching.  There was a huge element of their culture still embedded in their paradigm of which they may not have even been aware.  And even so, they had made huge strides in adjusting their world view already to accommodate what the Holy Spirit had done so far.  Perhaps they figured they'd "shifted" enough.

Now, what I've done here is constructed a framework with which I can support my own analysis of my cultural enmeshment.  How different am I in this problem?  I have a culture which has influenced me my whole life.  How many perceptions of what I read in Scripture do I filter through this cultural perspective?  In once sense it enables me to apply what I read, but on the other hand it obscures the message of my Master when what He commands strikes a stark contrast with my cultural assumptions.  There are just some things you don't do, or are considered foolish to do in our culture.  Sometimes I too quickly put a command or perspective of my Master into the basket of that time period rather than my own, "Surely He didn't mean that for today?"

There are somethings I'm not likely to do, like wearing clothes of only one type of cloth, or walking a second mile with a Roman soldier's pack on my back.  I freely confess that I'm not likely to do these, but what about loving my neighbor as myself?  What about when Jesus said we are to have that perspective in the Sermon on the Mount where we bless our persecutors, consider being reviled for His names sake as being happy beyond belief?  Do I accept these in my culture?  In the day of Paul, when he wrote that husbands are to love their wives as Jesus loved the Church selflessly, that was radically out of the cultural paradigm for both Jews and Gentiles.  It's radical for me, but I still don't do it, not like I should (like, I try, then resent having to - I'm a mess).

What I'm saying is that I need my paradigm, my world view, my mental framework through which I interpret and make sense of my world; I need that destroyed and reconstructed by my Master.  It makes me shiver just to write that.  How much would remain of what I have now?  It's uncomfortable to consider, in fact, it's probably so overwhelmingly huge, it becomes easy to ignore.  It's like how-big-is-our-sun huge, I can't mentally grasp it, so I don't think about it.  Too often I think the glory and majesty of my Master fits into that same category for me.  Yet, perhaps if I dwell for awhile on that, deconstructing my paradigm might be more imaginable.  So, I guess, once again, I shall start with praise for my Master.  Worship, why does it seem to always boil down to worship?  Probably because I'm such a slow learner.  Well, I seem to have some worship and "demolition" to do.

Holy Maintenance

Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." (Acts 10:15 NASB)

 Acts 10 fascinates me for a variety of reasons.  There is the barrier between Jew and Gentile breached, which seems so ironic to me since they didn't have a problem with the Samaritan barrier being breached.  There is the character of Cornelius who is both devout to God in that he prays and gives to the poor, but then when Peter arrives, bows and kisses the feet of a person as if he is a god of some sort; a throwback to his paganism.  The character of Peter that, even after such a dramatic vision of being told to eat unclean animals, still doesn't realize what's going on until he hears Cornelius' story; and even then is still a proud Jew benignly meeting with Gentiles.  There are lots of ironies in this chapter, and clearly the Holy Spirit is the true main character.

Something that is not so easy to spot because of how it is normally translated is the charge to Peter in the vision.  At first he is told to kill and eat from the unclean animals in the linen "vessel" and he refuses.  The next charge is always translated as, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."  In some way or another it is translated this way, and that is the most logical way to do so, as it fits the literary context.  An alternative that does not fit so well in the literary context, but I feel brings out a new depth of meaning is, "What God has sanctified (made holy), do not defile (make unholy)."  The imperative verb at the end of the statement has that option as well, in fact it would normally be used that way.  But in this case that doesn't fit as well, and is most likely not what Luke meant.  I want to explore it because of how that option affects my daily walk before my Master.

In the case of Cornelius, clearly God had sanctified him (or was in the process of it).  In my case, I am one caused to be holy.  People around me may have been made holy.  I have to admit that the process begins with the declaration that I'm holy, and then begins a struggle to keep me that way.  I can only suppose that it works in a similar way with others.  Here's the point of application:  It is an affront to my Master to consider myself unholy, or profane myself.  It is also an affront to my Master to consider someone else He has sanctified to be unholy or profane them.  In other words, I sin when I defile myself (duh, pretty obvious), but I also sin when I treat others as profane, or when I defile them (or cause them to become defiled).

Has anyone reading these entries ever noticed that I have this tendency to unpack a box I'm never going to be able to inventory and re-pack in one entry?  Well, here we go again.  There are way too many ramifications to this than I can address in this entry.  Let me just address these two: 1) I must consider myself holy to my Master, it's not an option.  2) I must seek to preserve the holiness of those around me. 

Sound obvious?  Well the most common ways they play out in my life is in compromise.  I compromise with myself, and permit myself to indulge in (whatever, food, play, TV, etc.) and leave off something my Master has for me to do.  When do this, I have taken myself out of His purpose, and chosen my own.  Not that every time I eat, play, watch TV or whatever I have abandoned the purpose of my Master, but in those times I have chosen that over what He calls me to do, then I defile myself. 

But I also compromise with other people.  In this culture that doesn't sound so bad, but in the context of the culture of my fellow believers, it's desecration of the individual.  One of the things that can often irritate my fellow church attendees is how our pastor is so dogmatic about sin being sin, and how God should be first, even in small things.  That really bothers people, and some have left because of it.  But if he did not do that, he would be desecrating the people to whom he preaches.  It's not a small matter, it's huge.  But I can be found in compromise as well.  His venue is out in front and obvious, mine is not always. 

Whenever I influence someone in my circle of believers to do something I know is contrary to the will of my Master for them, I desecrate them.  When I don't say what I know He wants me to say to another, to encourage them away from something outside His will, I desecrate them.  Whether it is refusal to confront a sin, the encouragement to sin, or even when I do not address something in Bible study that I should, or pull out something I should not; even then I desecrate or run that risk.

So what do I do?  For one thing, I must seek to perceive holiness in myself and others.  I must discipline myself to become aware of it.  There are obvious examples, and not so obvious ones, and I need to become aware of both.  But I also must discipline myself to set apart Jesus as my Master, and Him as the defining example of holiness.  And then I must submit to this holiness.  That will be the hard part.  It requires that I leave sanctification to my Master rather mine to control, and seek only to preserve what He does in me and in others.  Submission to holiness means that I subordinate my own view of others to His.  I cannot make another person holy, but I can help preserve the holiness my Master is creating in them.  This much my Master would have me do.  Submission, never has been one of my favorite things, but here I go again.

The Death of Disappointments

But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake." (Acts 9:15-16 NASB)

The conversion of Saul is very dramatic; arguably the most dramatic in all of Acts.  For some this implies that the book is really about Saul.  For others it seems that it's just like Saul, who comes off as a bit of a drama king in this book.  But the intent and plan of God from the beginning of Saul's conversion seems to include a very rough life for Saul.

Just in chapter 9, his own people try to keep him in Damascus to kill him.  Just past that, in Jerusalem, his own people again plot to kill him.  And to get away from the "drama" he is shipped to Tarsus, where's he's from.  And there he remains, at least for a chapter and a half.  No time frame is given, but it seems unlikely this was his "fourteen years in Arabia" he describes in Galatians 1.  Luke seems to leave that part out of the story entirely.

Saul seems to be surrounded by turmoil, dissent, anger, and violence.  Where he goes, cities are in uproar, riots break out, violence against followers of Jesus ensues, and peace is difficult to find; at least until he leaves.  His "resume" offered to those who would question his apostolic office and authority is filled with his own suffering (2 Corinthians 11).

Does Saul ever wonder why him?  Ironically, in Acts 9, Jesus asks him, "Why Me?"  Does Saul ever ask the question back?  Perhaps when Saul asks for the "thorn" to be removed?  I'm not sure where the question can be seen in Acts or in Saul's letters.  But I'm fairly confident he asked it at some point.  Although to offset the pain of this suffering was his knowledge of the damage he did to the church in Jerusalem and Judea.  In his own mind, there had to be a lot for which to "atone".  This also makes him very aware of grace.

If he is disappointed in God, it nevers reaches paper.  Disappointment for Saul is reserved for his fellow believers.  And yet even that seems to disapate in later letters.  I think for Saul, the lesson he learns through his "dramatic" ministry is to hold lightly the expectation of others.  At some point, as he deals more with his "crew" of fellow ministers rather than churches, his tone toward churches is less about admonishing the church, and more about encouraging the leaders.  Even in his letter to the Philippian church, where he does seek to correct a dispute, he is more encouraging than in other earlier letters.

So what happened in him to affect such a change?  I believe his disappointments finally died.  He reached a point where he could see people in church in much the same way Jesus did.  Jesus was never surprised by people, even those who said they were followers.  Paul reaches a point where he isn't either.  He no longer expects people to "get it".  I'm not there yet.

I still want people to get it, and still struggle when they don't.  On the other hand, I keep discovering so much I don't get.  I'm decent at knowing and finding out, but putting what I learn into practice is not my strong suit.  The discovery is fun, the practice is hard.  I love to find stuff in Scripture, but acting out on the truth I discover means dying to myself, and I don't love that.  Yet until I do, I won't be happy.

When my Master rules in my heart and mind, I won't hold such a primary place.  The expectations I have of others, whether "Scripturally-Based" or not are truly about me more than my Master.  The ensuing disappointments cause pain that is not mine to bear; it belongs to my Master.  It is in the experience of failure to control what I cannot that I feel pain within the family of fellow believers. 

Sure I lament sin I see in me and in others, but it's not mine to "expunge".  Why should I expect them to be free from it when I'm not free of mine?  Why should I expect them to understand and apply what I do not?  I'm forgiven, and forgiven of a whole lot.  Yet that knowledge hasn't yet inspired me to renounce myself and wholy embrace my Master as Master.  When I, in this condition, am disappointed by others around me, I have refocused on me.  And I can't be focused on myself, and my Master at the same time.

When I am focused completely on my Master, I am no longer expecting anything of others except that they wander in confusion, just like I do.  I can't see the ridiculous difference between myself and my Master and yet have a higher expectation of others; not when I'm focused on my Master.  Saul suffered, and Jesus said that Saul would be shown how much Saul must suffer for Jesus' name.  What, am I better than Saul?  More worthy of ease and comfort?  Less likely to need such lessons?  Um...no.

So, it's time for me to quit whining, and start praying.  It's time for me to praise my Master, extoll His virtues and power, glorify Him viewing His awesome works in the heavens, and express His value to me.  What needs to change is the focus of my heart and mind.  What does that as well and as thoroughly as worship?  Nothing I can think of.

Hammering Water

But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.  Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. (Acts 8:3-4 NASB)
 

Stephen's death marked the turn of the city of Jerusalem against the believers there.  The speech of Stephen was immensely powerful  in that it set the religious power-elite actively against the congregation they had barely tolerated until this time.  Their threats became reality, and they "brought the hammer down."  It didn't work exactly like they wanted though.

Saul drags off men and women from their homes, families are devastated (or should be), and the prisons are filling with these followers of Jesus.  Understandably, many in the Jerusalem congregation scatter to the outlying areas.  It's just as they go, they preach the good news.  The message Saul tried to stamp out is now spread all through the region around Jerusalem, into Samaria and is pressing out beyond.  Having brought the hammer down, the religious elite found they had hammered water.  They only made a bigger mess.

I don't know if they expected this reaction, but if they did expect something like this they controlled it poorly.  I don't think they really understood what they were fighting.  Like the old teacher from chapter 5 warned them, they found themselves fighting against God, and it wasn't going well.

Have I fought against my Master thinking I'm doing the "right thing" but completely missing His goals, purposes, and actions?  Maybe, and more probably as He works in my own life.  I don't know that I would characterize my mistakes as "bringing the hammer down", but that's not the only wrong response.  It is probably more accurate to say that I have actively tried to pursue the wrong thing thinking I was doing my Master's will.

There are things that I think should be a top priority with my Master, and, given the opportunity, I pursue those.  My evaluation of those sorts of things typically follows things I like to attack or work on, toward, or whatever.  They are my preferences because they come naturally or easy to me.  I am learning slowly that such criteria are more often wrong than right.

So, I may not be Saul persecuting those following Jesus, but I can be my own silly self pursuing my own agenda.  I'm still wrong, just perhaps not as dramatically.  The solution is submission.

By submitting to my Master daily, hourly, minutely, I can be much better attuned to what He is leading me into.  I can be more like Stephen, heedless of the coming torturous death, instead of Saul, heedless of the God at work around him.  And so, once again, I start with prayer (and a yard sale - I don't recommend the yard sale).

The Real Trial of Stephen

But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55-56 NASB)

Stephen stood before a council of the elders of his people, a crowd made up of those jealous of him, and sprinkled with those paid to lie about him. He is on trial. It looks grim, even from the beginning. The charges are false, yet not far enough from the truth that he going to be acquitted. And the council of elders has hated and been jealous of his fellow believers for months now. This will not end well for Stephen. Except that this is not the real court scene.

The council of leaders imagines themselves to be the judges. The throng of haters imagine themselves to be the jury. The lying witnesses imagine themselves to be the only proof either way. And they are all wrong.

It isn't until after the discourse of Stephen stripping the people and leaders of any pretext of being "godly" sons of Israel or true worshippers of God. Once the leaders and people are whipped to a burning hot fury that the true courtroom scene is revealed to Stephen, and therefore to us. Sealing his fate, he shares it with all the others in the room. Rather than hear reality, they rush him and take his life, ironically in the form of a judicial capital punishment.

Stephen is fully in tune with the Spirit of his Master, and sees the real courtroom. God is the Judge, and Jesus stands at the right hand of the Judge as Defense Attorney. God is Stephen's judge, and the Son of God is his Defense Attorney? This trial hasn't been lost, but won in a complete reversal. Stephen is shown his victory, heaven. He has acted in faith in what he hadn't seen so far, but knew in his heart. At the end, after his obedience, he sees the object of his faith revealed.

The wicked unjustly execute the righteous, and inadvertently, send him to reap his reward. Oops. Wait, no, but Stephen died, horribly crushed and battered by large stones. That's bad, isn't it? No, it just hurt for a little while.

Stephen saw the heaven opened. He saw his destination. These evil deluded ones around him were the pawns of Stephen's Master to bring him home. Stephen was bound to the feet of the One before all will bow and confess as Lord to the glory of God the Father. It was the kangaroo court, the mock trial, the flim-flam crooked job that provided his vehicle. Those who imagined themselves to be in control were in turned controlled by the One truly in control.

Now, the question for me is, can I stand, and, in faith, face the angry crowd unjustly accusing me? Will I speak the words of my Master rather than the words of my own defense? Will I seek His glory above where He stands to defend me beside His Father? Will I speak with the confidence that heaven is real, and waits for me to arrive? Do I truly believe that my destination makes all things I endure and face here mere trivia? Can I stand as Stephen stood, face the crowd he faced, and speak as he spoke?

Yes...and no. Yes, in a way, knowing the end, I can face intense adversity when challenged. But honestly, Stephen demonstrates daily faith in power before he is ever on trial. That's where I struggle and fail the most. In the daily battle to maintain my focus and determination. Where my heart is the determining factor in continuing to do what I find tiresome and pointless, that is where my faith tends to wear thin. The problem is that I have lost the "point" to a lot of what I do during the day.

I work at a job where mental flexibility and gymnastics is critical. That is also my strong point. But it is in between those times where I need that mental acuity where I struggle. In order to get to those times, I have a boatload of small repetitive tasks that have to be accomplished in a flurry of activity. Because I fail so often to connect those in importance with the things I love to do, I flag in my determination to do them. They become tiresome, and boring, and "pointless". They are not, but I begin to perceive them that way. Not at first, but rapidly, about the fifth or so task.

Stephen daily lived out the power of his faith, performed signs and wonders, not of himself, but of his Master. His life was headed for this mock trial, but he lived daily only in the light of his Master's face. What I need is that daily focus. The "tasks" are the things I do in the light of my Master's face. They may not seem like "signs and wonders", but when I am able to touch the life of someone and bring the light of my Master's face into their world, that is a sign and wonder in itself. These tasks I struggle with so much are not for my manager or company, or even for my clients. They are for my Master, the real Master I serve. They are not empty tasks, but opportunities; opportunities I have been missing way too often.

Don't Skip The Mistakes!

The patriarchs became jealous of Joseph and sold him into Egypt. Yet God was with him (Acts 7:9 NASB)

Stephen is faced with the powerful elite of his day.  He is accused of things that he would have trouble defending because they are false, but true enough to still get him in trouble.  So in this situation, what should he do?  Well, obviously, tell his audiences favorite story.  It's a long story, so he can't possibly include everything.  What does he make sure he includes?  He doesn't miss the mistakes of the people.

Like pot holes on your favorite road, these "mistakes" mar an otherwise uplifting story.  So why include them?  Because he is headed somewhere.  This road that looks so good and feels so right, isn't headed where his audience thinks it is.  These mistakes are what good storytellers call "foreshadowing".  They are the clues about what is coming in the story; ripples on an otherwise cool calm pool.

So why take this road faced with such power?  Because his point is the same point Jesus made.  His direction for his audience is the same direction Jesus took.  Things among the Jewish people cannot remain the same.  Their world is about to change, whether they like it or not.  Jerusalem is going to fall to utter destruction...again.  But their God wants them to choose between the way things have been going, and the new world He has for them.  He's been giving them lots of foreshadowing (prophets and events), but now has come the time for choice.

I believe Stephens words are so strong, so hot, and so deep because the choice is that important.  These "ripples" are just the little quakes before the earth quake comes.  These foreshadowing elements connect the dots all the way back to their origins.  They have always made mistakes, and God has always brought them through, weaving those mistakes into His own design. But the time for mistakes is over; they've reached the end of the thread woven through their history.  It ends with Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God.

Can I look back and let my Master show me how He has woven my mistakes into His design, and begun my redemption from before I was born?  Actually, will I look back?  Will I let my Master show me these things?  Or will I cover my ears and gnash my teeth?  I never really liked gnashing, I much prefer a good story.