Welcome
Prayer
Music
Silence
Acts 10.13-28
August 14th 2016
Milk
Okay we left off with Peter being on top of a roof in Joppa and while in a trance saw a vision where (according to verse
11 and 12
“And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.”
This would have been an interesting vision for Peter and in all probability he did not, at this point, know what it meant.
So God gets direct with Peter (verse 13)
13 And there came a voice to him, “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.”
14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.”
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Let’s cover these verses before moving on.
So up to verse 11 and 12, in a trance, has only seen this sheet and these animals in vision. Now a new element is added to the scene – audio (verse 13):
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Now, just to put this into perspective, the Law of Moses, reigning for some 1500 years over the people of Peter, was pretty darn clear regarding what could be eaten and what was to not even be touched.
Let me give you a sample from the Old Testament Book of Leviticus:
11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
There is a lot more but the direction from Yahway were clear – you can eat this but you cannot eat that – cannot even touch it.
As I said last week I would be willing to bet that sitting there on that sheet was a swine, and a coney, and a hare.
Additionally, the voice in the vision commanded Peter to stand and kill the unclean animal – something that the Law prohibited too because he would have to probably touch it to kill it so this vision was an all-around “festival of law breaking” for the man.
His response to the command, Rise kill and eat? (verse 14)
14 Peter said, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.”
Now, I’ve always taught this – even as recently as last week – that Peter had the audacity to refuse the command of the Voice of the Lord – but I took the time to investigate this reply a bit more and stand corrected this morning.
The phrase in the King James is, “Not so, Lord” but in the Greek its Mêdamôs, kurie which best means in the imperative, “let it be” and in the optative, “may it not be.”
It is NOT the Greek “oudamôs” which would be the blunt refusal of “I shall not do it” but is in the optative and therefore the more mild protest or a polite refusal accompanied with a reason.
Obviously Peter recognizes that the invitation to slay (thuson) the unclean animals is from the Lord (kurios) but he gently resists the invitation three times!
Did God prohibit eating such things in the past? He did.
Was it written in the Law? It was.
In the Word of God? Yes
In God’s Law? Yes.
It was the Law which not only remained in the written scripture and Peter personally had never violated it but (Listen now) here in a vision he was being told to do something that was in direct opposition to the historical precedence, yes, the VERY LAW of Moses, yes to the written Word itself!
He was faced with a conflict between what was written in the Law and the verbal command of the Lord.
Have you ever thought of this – that Peter was being told to go against what was written?
Now, we have to admit a couple of things about this situation. First, it was a vision – there were no real animals and had Peter “stood and killed” it would have been a symbolic gesture and not a reality.
We also note that the purpose of this vision was to provide direction and meaning to what Peter would be asked to do the next day.
It was not literally applicable to his literal life, meaning even after being commanded Peter did not let an unclean animal touch his hands or mouth – even though it was commanded in the vision. And God did not punish him for his refusal.
I mean, the vision and the command was repeated three times and three times Peter refused!
The vision was provided so God could reiterate to Peter that what God had called clean he was not to call unclean.
In my estimation this is the main purpose of the vision-trance – and it was NOT to get Peter to kill and eat a forbidden (and by the way tasteless) apparition.
It was to teach him a principle or principles, which include:
That what God once called unclean could (and would) now be seen as clean – Gentiles and everything about them and their lifestyles – including the food they ate. That if God could make “unclean animals clean” he would and could certainly make unclean men the same.
Another principle was . . .
That the Laws of purity were about to come to an end, and what once made a person unclean would not longer have that ability, and also (here’s a big one never mentioned) . . .
That under the direction of the Spirit what was written would no longer reign over the hearts of Man – God would.
Did I say that, as a teacher of the Bible – that what is written would take a back seat to the Word of the Spirit in the heart of believers? I did.
This last point is really radical to most religious people but in this experience with Peter we actually have a biblical precedence to support it.
Plainly stated, Peter had a Bible and it plainly stated Don’t eat and now Peter had a voice in a vision not only saying something a little different it was saying the exact opposite!
Whether you agree or appreciate this principle or not allow me to show how the very Bible supports it.
This situation with “Peter and the Law” verse “Peter and the vision” is an early picture from the Apostolic Church of how the Spirit was to reign over God’s people NOT written words.
Written words are to help us understand but the Spirit is our guide. Why? The Letter, of any kind, killeth.
I know in our day and age of “sola Scriptura” what I am saying is really hard to accept. But it is entirely biblical and again is supported by insights like this.
This afternoon I will be teaching the 2nd Epistle of John. In that, John gives instruction to a woman and her children.
The time and setting of the letter are right at the end of the age when everything was coming apart and the woman John was writing to was known for her hospitality.
John cared for her and her family and first wrote and encouraged them to continue in love.
But in those last days there was a very very influential (even an evil group of anti-Christ’s) that were leading many Christians astray. They were known as the Gnostic Docetae and they taught that Jesus was not really a man.
After affirming that Jesus was actually the Son of God, John gives this hospitable woman a warning about her interaction with these types.
Taking all of this backstory into account, this is what John writes:
2nd John 1:10-11 “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (that Jesus is the Son of God come into the world), receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”
My point in bringing this up here and now is that there are believers today who will take what was written here by John to this single woman and say we must apply it to all people who do not agree with us today – all the while ignoring the leadings of the Lord by the Spirit.
One conversation could go like this:
“I had an atheist stop by my house today.”
(They say)
“Did you let him in?”
“Well, yeah, he’s an old friend who could really use the Lord and I have such a heart for him.”
Then comes the weapon of the written word:
“Well John makes it clear that if someone comes to your home that does not accept the Good News you don’t let them in and you don’t even pronounce a blessing upon them.”
“But, the Lord has helped me love this man so deeply. I;m tryin to reach him with this love.”
And the reply:
“Look, you either follow the Word or you don’t.”
I believe that we can learn from this vision the importance of following the Spirit of the Law and not the Letters of the Law itself.
That was going away. God was now calling things clean that had long been written as unclean and unacceptable. And what communicated this information to Peter was spiritual.
All through the Old and New Testaments we are reminded that all the material applications of the Law and its legislation over us would pass away.
We have here in this vision an example of this happening.
Now listen – the Word is a blessed gift to us – a map that when spiritually understood serves as a second witness to the spiritual directives we receive for “in the mouth of two or three witnesses are all things established.”
This is why we spend so much time studying it and giving it consideration.
But the contents must be taken into account with God’s overall objectives – which is to govern His family of regenerated believers by laws written on our hearts – which is the law of love – and nowhere else.
Hebrew 10:16, speaking of a promise given by the Prophet Jeremiah hundreds of years earlier repeats it and says, speaking of the New Covenant:
“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;”
In chapter 8 of the same chapter and referring to the same prophecy the writer says:
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Paul plainly writes in 2nd Corinthians 3:2-3:
“Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.”
Peter was learning here first hand that what was written would now work in harmony with the Spirit of the Lord from the heart.
“Demanded law,” for every Christians, is individually inscribed by the Spirit on the Heart of all believers, leaving all of us under the direct and indisputable internal laws of God and not those that are interpreted and demanded by men.
When the Reformational Fathers took the written “replicated by the Guttenberg press” Old and New Testaments and dogmatically screamed, “Sola Scriptura” they created one of the most divisive systems on earth which does nothing but “war against the law (of love) written on believers hearts” which dragged millions of people back under the rule of religion, men, and written laws.
We study to show ourselves approved and to learn of God but we live by the Law of God written on our respective hearts.
Anyway, Peter’s response to the vision was to say he had never eaten what was common or unclean and that he wasn’t about to start. It was to this response that we get to the heart of the matter regarding the vision and its purpose (verse 15)
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Now I have a rhetorical question for you to ask yourselves right here and now – “who HAS God cleansed?”
Keep your answer in mind – well get back to it in a minute.
We know from the fact that Peter did not “rise, kill and eat” from the gathering of animals on the sheet that the actual purpose of the vision was NOT to get what Peter believed were unclean animals on his lips but to prepare him to open the Gospel to non-Jews who were also considered unclean.
Looking at the animals Peter says,
“I would rather like to pass on killing and eating these things for I have never eaten anything that is unclean or common.”
So while I do believe that on a lesser note God was saying to Peter that if He called the animals on the sheet clean they were clean but perhaps more fitting and applicable is God was teaching Peter the Principle that . . .
“What God hath cleansed, he was not to call unclean or common.”
Now, hang with me. The Greek term for common here is koy-oo-nu – which means common, especially “common, defiled, and unholy.”
But God is now telling Peter that if He has deemed something clean to not only not call it common (koy-oo-oo) but to now have koinonia with it – actual communion – a derivative of the root word Koy-oo-o.
See, under the law, there were people, animals and things that were seen as “commonly defiled” (koy-oo-nu) by the Jews.
But now, under Christ finished work, God is now paradoxically telling Peter to not only not call such things common or unholy (koy-oo-o) defiled BUT BUT BUT to now have koi-non-ia (communion) with them! Radical.
In such things I find “the full circle ways of God” revealing themselves so delicately, so beautifully.
“Peter, don’t call what I have cleansed COMMON but instead have COMMUNION with it (animals) or as we will soon see, with other people.”
The mysteries of God are wild. Also note the language here:
“What God hath cleansed, Peter was not to call unclean or common.”
Obviously this is speaking about the animals on the sheet. But is it also speaking of Cornelius and his family?
If so, how has God determined them to be clean when in fact they have not received Jesus by faith?
The reason I make mention of this is because it was UNLAWFUL (in Peter’s mind) for him to even go in unto a house of unclean non-Jew Gentiles.
So we have somewhat of a catch-22.
Peter was supposed to go and preach to Cornelius but was not supposed to get near them according to the way the Law was lived in that day.
Like the animals, they were to him unclean. But in the example or illustration of the animals God is teaching Peter that he ought not anymore call what God has cleansed . . . unclean.
Again, I ask the rhetorical question – who has God cleansed?
With this knowledge from the vision Peter would go in unto Cornelius and his family and friends and engage with them AS THOUGH GOD HAD CALLED THEM CLEAN ALREADY!
Had He?
How did God call them clean when they had not heard nor received the Good News of Jesus by faith?
(long beat)
Mull this over a minute.
(beat)
And let’s read on through the text which may help me make the point I’m trying to make.
Listen carefully to what we read next.
17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house (Simon the Tanner’s house), and stood before the gate,
18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, “Behold, three men seek thee.
20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.”
21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, “Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?”
22 And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.”
23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself also am a man.”
27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Alright back to verse 17
17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean (again re-emphasizing that the vision had a meaning but was NOT to get Peter to actually eat a beastly critter), behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,
Peter is perplexed about the vision and seems to doubt its meaning and right at that moment the men Cornelius sent arrived at the house and stood at the porch before the door and (verse 18)
. . . called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
At this same time the Spirit, not Simon the Tanner or others in the house) but the Spirit communicates with Peter and says
19 . . . behold, three men seek thee.
20 Arise” (same arise used when speaking to him about the animals) “Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.”
Let’s read what Peter does:
21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?
22 And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
So we don’t read past that last line the men were asked by Peter, “what is the cause that you have come seeking me” and they said:
“Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house (meaning Cornelius’s house), and to hear words of thee. (for you to preach to him.)
Got that? The men told Peter in advance why they had come to get him – for Peter to come into Cornelius’s house and teach him.
23 Then Peter called them in (the Men), and lodged them. (Again, this is a break through for Peter as he is showing in-house hospitality toward these non-Jewish presumably Italians – but this does not mean he hung out with them in their quarters – he merely housed them) And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
Acts 11:12 tells us that there were six in number that came with Peter back to Cornelius’s house. It was quite normal for the early Christians to accompany the apostles in their journeys. (we know this from Romans 15:24; Acts 15:3; 3rd John 1:6; and 1st Corinthians 16:6 and 11). (verse 24)
24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
This was an extremely exciting time for Cornelius as he has had a heavenly intervention into his life telling him that God accepted his offerings and had a special event planned for him. So he gathered up his relatives (his kin) and the friend dear to him apparently so they could hear what this man from Joppa would tell them to do.
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Now, let’s not get confused here. The angel, according to last week, did not tell Cornelius anything about the man from Joppa that was coming to teach him.
Ignoring this there is a tendency to believe that Cornelius was actually worshipping Peter as if he were a God.
I think this is an improper reading. Cornelius really did not know what Peter was going to do or bring.
So why do we read that he “fell at Peter’s feet and worshipped him?”
In Oriental countries it was common to (in the presence of kings or leaders) to show profound regard for their person by bowing oneself to the earth.
The word translated worship here comes from the Greek “proskuneo” and it simply means to bow oneself down.
So I would suggest that what we read here does not mean religious homage but customary civil respect and regard poured upon those in places of any type of honor – in this case, the honor Peter had to be used by God.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
Again, this does not imply that Peter stopped Cornelius from worshipping him as a god but it was probably more to the intent of saying, “Hey, I am nothing more than a common man, like you, and I make no pretentions otherwise.”
So Peter and Cornelius meet. Peter has been lead along by God through these introductions, hasn’t he?
First to Samaria (to the Samaritans), then to Simon the Tanner, then to a vision of unclean beasts and the command to kill and eat, then to lodging three non-Jews who sought him out, and now to actually lifting a gentile man up from prostrating himself before him.
If we let Him, God will break our walls down to – often in similar ways to what is doing with Peter – through direct exposure.
Are you prejudice toward another race but love God and His Son – expect to get called to work among members of that race – or maybe have one marry into the family.
Love God but hate gays? Look for a child or grandson to pop up someday wearing a dress.
Think divorce is an end all moral sin? Expect one in your life or family.
God wants those who love Him to love all – because He is love and we are His children. If you are His I believe He will make sure we love as He loves – and he’ll give opportunity to make this happen. So Peter and Cornelius have met (verse 27)
27 And as he (Peter) talked with him, he went in (to the house), and found many that were come together.
Look out – Peter is now stepping right out of his element – and completely into a gathering of people who for 1500 years he and his people called, “the Great Unwashed.”
He is a “Jonah in Ninevah,” a “Westboro Baptist at a gay parade,” a “bigot at a AME barbeque,” “a Christian apologist in the midst of Mormons.”
And he was there and then faced with a decision in his life and as an apostle. Fortunately, God had given Peter a vision – a sheet full of . . . how does scripture describe those creations on the sheet??? Oh, that’s right , as . . .
“all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air . . .” a very good description of the way bigoted and prejudiced people would view other filthy human beings, right?
Now listen very carefully to what Peter says at this point to Cornelius:
28 Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation . . .(BEAT)
Can you hear yourself say something similar when you are standing outside a gathering of people you feel are undesirable or unclean?
You have been taught that it is not wisdom, that it is not proper, that as a Christian I ought to not keep company with . . .
. . . the people in that bar . . .
. . . that couple living in sin . . .
. . . those Muslims . . .
Isn’t that what religion says? Avoid the VERY appearance of evil!, That’s what’s Written, right? But what does the Spirit say?
Peter says, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation
but God . . .
. . . hath shewed me . . .
that I . . .
should not call any man . . . common (defiled or unholy) . . . or . . . unclean.
(LONG BEAT)
Now we are going to talk about the specifics to this verse next week as we are out of time today but I want to wrap today up by presenting you with a concept to consider.
In creating and carving out a people for Himself, the Nation of Israel, God established for them the Law – it was moral, it was ceremonial, and it was civil – and by and through obedience to it they, as a people, were able to remain somewhat acceptable to Him.
Included in this system was a sacrificial order of sorts, established as a means to make temporary atonement for sin.
That system was a stop-gap measure put in place to cover the sins of the people (with animal blood) but neither it nor the law was instituted to remain (or be “fully effective) forever for as Paul says regarding the Law
(Romans 10:4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
And as the writer of Hebrews says regarding animal sacrifice:
(Hebrews 10:4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Here in the face of Cornelius and his family and friend, Peter has taken the vision given Him by God and interpreted it this way (listen carefully, now)
“but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man unholy (common) or unclean.”
When did God show Peter this? In the vision of the animals – this is what Peter came away with from the vision – THAT he should NOT call any man UNHOLY or UNCLEAN!!!
Did you catch it? ANY MAN . . . unholy or unclean.
“What are you saying, Shawn?”
I am saying only what scripture says:
That through the lawful life and sinless shed blood of Christ ALL people (past, present and future) have been made holy and clean before God.
Have all people accepted His gift? Hardly.
But all are clean and sanctified by and through the perfect finished work of Christ.
The sin that remains is the sin of unbelief in this final and perfect cleansing which has been had for all. But the cleansing has been done.
Note that Cornelius had not yet confessed Jesus nor heard the Good News from Peter but Peter was convinced from the vision, that somehow he could no longer view any man as unclean anymore.
This is because when Christ said, “it is finished,” it was. And his salvivic work among Man did the job for all.
Understanding this key point will alter our understanding of what we are actually sharing and calling people to see – that they have been forgiven, NOT that they need to be forgiven.
And being clean from sin to now look to the author and finisher of this faith with hope and love – for God and others.
Many people will say that people can BECOME clean and holy by receiving Christ by faith.
If this was the case Peter would have remained outside Cornelius’s house, got them to receive Christ first, then called them clean and would have then fellowshipped with them.
Not so.
He went in unto them seeing them as holy and clean – and then gave them the good news.
We are not trying to get people forgiven or to get them clean. We are trying to get people to realized that they have been forgiven, that they are clean, all by the finished work of God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
More next week.
Q and A
