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.