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.