In defense of his earlier baptism of pagan believers, Peter demonstrates to the members of the Jerusalem church that God's intention to save Gentiles as well as Jews is revealed in Jesus' own testimony. In this way the mission to the Gentiles is officially authorized.
Like the author of Revelation, Peter is stirred by a vision and acts on it. He recognizes that Christ's message and the Spirit's presence is for all people: "God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life." This is not the destruction of the "old" covenant with Israel, but a renewal and furthering of what God had intended all along.
...MOther's day. How would it look to insert 'mothers' 'woman' 'female' into the 'unclean' references from Peter's revelation? Surely the Church has still not fully embraced the realities of what God has pronounced clean in the countless generations of encultured inequality between genders!
I'm inclined to pick away at this piece (tastefully, hopefully!) while reminding the believers that the picture we have of God is very feminine...inspite of our legacy of flogging the submissive woman thing adnosium!
Here's a quote I picked up from a discussion board hosted by Burderhoff communities: "The funny thing about "man, head --- woman, helper" imagery is that no one ever talks about the other part of that image. The word "ezer" in Hebrew is "helper" and it is the same word that David uses in the Psalms wehn he refers to God as his helper. I think the picture is one of strength, rather than someting like "Everybody oughta have a maid..."""
Perry in Kitchener/Waterloo
My sermon will be entitled "By I Say To You". The issue for me is the tension between the Word and Spirit. We know that Jesus challenged the accepted understandings of the Law of Moses, but Jesus was the Christ, the Lord, even the Son of God. Jesus might have such authority. However, now Peter is doing it. His obedience to the Spirit leaves him in direct contradiction with the "Written Word" of his day. The question is how and when should we listen to the Spirit? The easy answer is to say that Peter was an apostle and the Spirit could speak to him but that age of revelation has ended. The Biblical test is to make certain that the Spirit affirms that "Jesus is Lord." Still, this is a sticky wicket.
We have choosen the Spirit over the passages supporting slavery. SOme of us have choosen the Spirit over some of passages which deal with women in leadership. Now we are wrestling with homosexuality, etc. Once the gate is opened, then no telling where the path will end. Unfortunately, I am not comfortable going back to a world in which children are stoned for cursing their parents, or rape victims (within the city limits) are executed with their attackers.
This is almost an issue that calls for revelation! I am reminded of the passage in Jeremiah where the false profit claims that God has sent a message. He absolutely shuts Jeremiah up, because Jeremiah cannot argue with divine revelation. It is only after the Spirit has again revealed God's will to Jeremiah that he can speak against this false prophecy.
Anyway, it will be an interesting week.
Aside from the obvious inclusion as all people being God's people, there is much going on here. The intensity of his prayer, Peter saw visions, is very strong. He looked at the vision closely, heard a voice from Heaven, he spoke to the voice and then came to a conclusion. Immeadiatly, other people were sent by God to confirm this conclusion and finally Peter remembered Jesus' words. God reveals His truth and will to us and we need to listen. Prayer, fellowship and Jesus word, all three in conclusion will certainly put us on the right path!
Galveston: i plan to begin the sermon on Acts 11 with "Sugar and Spice and everything nice: Snakes and Snails and Puppy dog tails" - we have preconcieved and societal views about most things, even the different way boys and girls should act. Since the world is talking so loudly, how can we hear God's voice? Here is what God did to change Peter's mind: and Here is what God does to change our minds, ...
Good news is bad news.
There's an old routine from the movies. A group of employees has drawn lots and the loser's job is to go tell some higher-up something that's difficult to say. How do they put it? "Well, boss," they hem and haw, "there's good news and there's bad news. Which do you want?" With Cornelius and Peter the old routine gets an even older twist. Cornelius hears that God has accepted him and his prayers. Call it good news. Peter, however, before hearing the report, would not have believed that God had accepted a Gentile. Call it bad news. So what do you do with messengers approaching? What do you do when good news is bad news?
Peter would have wanted to make a Gentile like Cornelius fit into the way things were.
Peter's solution is to make the Corneliuses of this world fit the mold. He knows all the old ecclesiastical formulae. Doubtless his favorite one is the church's version of the last seven words of Christ: "We've never done it that way before." At any rate, before Peter even hears the news, he would be sure in his heart. His response would be simple. He would assume that Cornelius or any other Gentile must be instructed on the proper order of things: first circumcision, then baptism.
Before Cornelius's messengers show up, the Spirit surprises Peter with a vision.
The complication deepens. Just when Peter thinks all such matters have been settled, the Spirit interrupts with a troubling vision and a direct order. The vision comes before Cornelius's news even arrives: "Slaughter and eat." As if to drive the point home, the instruction becomes more explicit as Peter resists: "What God has cleansed, you must not call common." Peter, once certain, is now troubled—by the Spirit. Perhaps Peter should have read a little Henri Nouwen, whose wise friend notes that "my interruptions [are] my work." And so they are—look at Peter, for whom all seemed settled until the Spirit interrupted him with a vision.
With the arrival of the news, suddenly Peter gets the picture: God is impartial.
Scientific revolutions tend to work this way. At first, they start with disparate pieces of evidence that don't fit the dominant paradigm. After a while, the evidence adds up and begins pointing to a competing way of looking at the world. Over time, a new scientific paradigm is assembled and its explanatory power becomes the new dominant worldview. Whether it's a flat earth, evolutionary ancestry, or the debate over homosexuality—sometimes things change because another truth dawns on us. Well, the same kind of thing seems to happen to Peter. His worldview was settled before: circumcision, then baptism. But then the new evidence begins to gnaw at the edges of his known world: visions of unclean food, divine commands from the Spirit to listen to a Gentile like Cornelius, and then Cornelius's own report of his vision. The evidence at this point overwhelms Peter: "Truly I realize now that God shows no partiality...." And with these words, a worldview begins to crumble and a new world starts taking shape. Seeing the Spirit among them, Peter now can't help but baptize.
So where does that leave us? With an appealing gospel!
In breaking down Torah restrictions, Christianity hit the big time. For communities who felt marginalized, the break was decisive. Again and again in our history, we have come to terms with increasingly broader visions of God's love for humanity. Sure, the church has more often than not resisted change and taken steps away from inclusion. Nonetheless, the theo-logic of its own ethnic boundary crossing in the early church has been an impetus for transformation that seems inherent to Christian faith. Every time we set up a new barrier to divine grace, the Spirit reminds us, as it did Peter, of God's absolute freedom to love. This has been our appeal as Christianity has become a world-wide phenomenon.
The change has also left us with a wound: a broken relationship with God's people, Israel.
The problem here is palpable. We Christians have tended to sent up Jews as a foil in the way we relate this gospel of crossing boundaries. If the issue is inclusion, we paint "the Jews" as exclusive and narrow- minded. If the issue is ethnic identity, we portray "the Jews" as primitively ethnocentric. If the issue is the Law versus freedom, we turn "the Jews" into punctilious legalists. None of this squares with the living reality of Judaism. Nonetheless, it persists in our preaching and teaching, in part because we assume that our freedom, liberation, and inclusion requires someone else's legalism, bondage, and exclusivity as a foil. In the process, we have failed to recognize our Jewish brothers and sisters for who they really are.
So what do you know? Perhaps our problem goes to the core of the gospel news itself. Good news is bad news is good news. We Christians have tried to justify ourselves by turning the Jews into what they are not. Yet if we remember our gospel, we may just be converted ourselves. According to the gospel, we need no longer justify ourselves or anyone else—especially the Jews. Peter's choice lies open to us this day as well. Can we move beyond the grief of choosing between the Spirit and the scriptures as Peter did? Only, people of God, only by God's own gospel of grace for us and for our Jewish brothers and sisters.
Dear Anonymous Poster,
You are absolutely right in your commentary about Christians making the Jewish people "The Other" in a variety of categories.
I recently saw an interview with Karen Armstrong, the noted religious scholar. She was talking about the boundaries some religious traditions have (e.g. Jewish kosher laws) She pointed out that such restrictions have the salutary effect of reminding us that "It's not all about us" - our convenience, our desires. Boundaries help distinguish our place in our relationship with God, so that we do not mistake ourselves for God (the original sin).
That said, I agree with Jesus, that what really matters is not what you put in your mouth but what comes out of your heart.
LF
My sesrmon title for this passage is: "Behold! I Stand At The Door and Knock -- It Off Its Hinges!". There will be reference to our General Conference's apology for excluding blacks in the past history of United Methodism, the attempt still today to exclude women from certain pulpits, and bring in today's discomforting gay issue. ps in or
ps in or
Do you think perhaps we can't hear the knocking because some of us are still living with past mistreatment inappropriately? I don't want society to see the new found injustices because they might forget what they did to me(generic term). As we become a smaller world, and become more inclusive, we struggle with God and inclusivity. I find it hard to hear my denomination struggling with issues. I can't even listen.
Shalom
Bammamma
I am going to highlight the vision/dream aspect of Acts 10/11 along with MLK's "I have a dream" speach. I bellieve that it is God's dream that the church expand its boundaries to include all people. No doubt that was the message Cornelius and Peter received in their respective visions/dreams, but the established church balked at first. Yet, how could baptism be refused, the Holy Spirit played a trump card and included even Gentiles. Who are we excluding from the church because of our established views? How can we be convinced that all are clean in God's eyes and are worthy of the gift of repentance and new life?
Tom In TN
Bad cliches came to my mind too quickly when I re-read this passage. 1. "He has a face only a mother could love." 2. "Necessity is the mother of invention." 3. "We've never done it that way before." (This last one is the phrase that every pastor fears.) So, here's my thinking on these in light of this scripture, especially when combined with the other texts for Sunday.
1. Peter's visions forced him to look into the face of things that were disgusting/unclean to him. These were things only a mother could love.
2. God called Peter to reach beyond himself and love more deeply those who were the "unloved" ones in society. Peter heard the call to go to the gentiles of Joppa.
3. The Jewish Christians responded to Peter's stance with "WE've never loved (done that) before."
4. When God calls us to go beyond our comfort zones it may mean doing things we've never done. It may mean learning to reach past our old experiences to new methods, ideas, possibilities, etc. We may have to invent (re-invent, adopt, embrace) new ministries, new methods, new images, new extensions of our faith to reach the unloved/unclean/unwanted/untouched of society.
I cherish your insights.
Steve in NC
Thanks for your insights Steve. I have definatly seen and experianced this cycle!
I see a wonderful tie in between the readings in Acts and Revelation and not just because we're dealing with visions. In the reading from Acts, Peter is confronted by a Lord that was "making all things new." As several of you have posted, Peter's first response was that "we've never done it this way before" and God's reply was, "Get used to it." In a way, God wipes out the old (the old prejudices, the old fears, the old limitations) and creates a new world for any that will be part of it, Jew or Gentile. Now the dwelling of God is with ALL people, not just a select few in Jerusalem, and He reaches out to them and sends the believers to tell them that He wants to be their God and wants them to be His people. I think that might even preach. So do you think anyone will complain that "we've never done this before" as God re-creates Heaven and Earth? Mike in Soddy Daisy, TN
How to turn criticisms of men into praises of God in Ministry? At the risk of oversimplifying the matter, this is what I observed:
1) You better be doing what God told you to do. (Knowing if God really, really told you to do it is half the problem already.)
2) The one who criticized need to have pure motive for God's Kingdom, and not just grinding an axe.
3) You will need human's witness beside just God's witness. The six men who were there with Peter hot only just mere observant, but they also entered the pagan's house as well. Do not work alone may help.
4) Find Biblical ante-precedent. (even though it may seems like proof- texting, but we need to start somewhere with the text).
5) finally strengthen your defense with logic (v. 17).
You may hot survive the ordeal (my NT prof. believed that Peter lost his leadership prominence after this), but in the scheme of God, it will become a precedent for Paul to build on later in Acts 15.
Lord Jesus, help me to be faithful in obeying you. Give me the conviction to know if it were you, who lead me, and not my own mind. Raise up more fellow workers by my side, and give me wisdom to see the logic through your Word. I don't have any prominent now, so it is not too hard to risk; but give me courage to obey you in the days that obedience would be costly.
Coho, Midway City.
Beth in GA - where in GA are you?
Sally
I'm going to tell the following story, then relate it to how we often don't even talk to people about Jesus because we have already decided they won't want any part of him.
I'm thinking of the rough teenagers and young adults who have multiple piercings all the way up to the elderly who we think are too old to change. I won't accuse anybody of being prejudiced, but I can't help wondering if we don't decide that people wouldn't want Jesus before we ever offer him.
Here Goes: Hope it isn't too long.
A long time ago there was a man named Pete He was a member of a church. He was a typical “on fire” Christian Who was always active.
He took his obedience to Jesus very seriously. Especially that part about going and telling other people about HIM. Pete saw that a serious command directly to him to go an make disciples of all nations.
Pete left his home church and went out West because that’s what he thought God wanted him to do. He preached out there with some success.
But while he was there he became convinced that God wanted him to travel up in the Northwest area to a place called Washington.
He had met some men from that area, and he traveled with them. When he got to his destination, he met some people who told him that they had been waiting for someone to come and teach them.
One of them even said that an angel has promised him that someone would come.
So Pete... Told them about Jesus.
? How he is the Son of God.
? About all his miracles.
? How he was crucified
? How God raised him up again. He told them how Jesus is appointed by God to be the Judge of both the living and the dead.
And finally he told them that whoever believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins.
Well they ate that up. Before long there were a whole bunch of them wanting to become Christians and be baptized.
So Pete told them to go ahead. Well, that created a little bit of a problem back home. See some of the folks from home were there with Pete when all this happened.
And when they carried the news back home of what was going on out on the West Coast, some of the folks at home weren’t too happy.
They weren’t quite sure that those folks out on the West Coast were close enough to God to become Christians.
And the next time Pete was back home, they kinda called him on the carpet.
I’m not saying Christians can be prejudiced or anything. It’s just ... · Sometimes there are people who just won’t fit. · They wouldn’t be interested in doing what we do or having what we have.
But if you remember, I told you... Pete took his Christianity seriously. And when they challenged him, he stood his ground.
He didn’t back down.
In fact, He stood up and told them. If God wants to give them the same thing he gives us when we believe in Jesus, who am I to stop him?
Well, you know what those old church people did?
They backed off. And you should be glad they did. B/C if they had not backed off.... This church wouldn’t be here.
See, the story I just told you didn’t happen in North America. It happened in the book of Acts, In chapter 11.
The only difference is that the city wasn’t named after George Washington, it was named after Caesar. It was called Caesarea.
And the preacher’s name was Peter, not Pete.
GC in IL
It has seemed to me, in many years of associate ministry that the right sermon to preach on Mother's Day is not one that sentimentalizes motherhood or even one that reminds us how our mother's have and can teach us much about God by their love, though I am as sentimental as the next on Mother's Day, especially since my own mother's death and even though she did teach me much about God's love without ever using those words. Instead, I think a proper Mother's Day sermon would be to remind people of the mothers in the world who struggle to find enough food for their children, the mothers of the plaza who spoke up for their children who had been disappeared, for mothers who fight for justice. At the end of the play, "All My Sons" the father realizes that the injustice of making the poor plastic that was to have protected the pilots was wrong in the end because all the boys in the planes were his sons. I guess that is the truth I want to rememmber on mother's day. This year the texts help do that since Peter realized that God had poured out his Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles, it was like he saw them finally as worthy of God's grace-- and that is a huge step to knowing that they are all our sons and daughters, all our brothers and sisters. In John's Gospel Jesus tells them twice that they are to love one another. It seems in the Christian church we have to have an ever expanding notion of what we mean by 'one another'. Suddenly Peter is given a dream; it repeats three times just to be sure he got it. Then the Holy Spirit comes and Peter remembers the words of Jesus about how that would happen and Peter finally knows that the Gentiles are his brothers. The "one another" of John's text must mean something new. The disicples and the apostles must widen their community. My church needs to widen its understanding of who "one another" refers to. They are good at loving those who come every week, (at least those who haven't ticked them off in the last week or forty years, depending upon the person.) but they aren't so good at those others who are just outside their door. We live within an increasingly Hispanic neighborhood, we have a small outreach to that communtiy but there is still very little love extended. Sorry to ramble--- Avis in Louisville
Tying in (late) to the origin of the first mother's day -- Mother's Day of Peace ... and that God loves both the circumcised and the uncircumcised --... has me thinking about this mother's desire for peace ... and THIS mother's struggle with how to love everyone. I can't get out of my mind the awful images of the torture in Iraq of POW's by OUR soldiers ... . Those victims of abuse, criminals or not, have mothers who wanted them to grow up in peace. Those US soldiers/agents ... tainted by evil though they have been ... have mothers, who fear for their safety and want them to be good people.
I don't know, it's still pretty tangled in my mind, but the two do go together.
:-(
Squeeze