All rational individuals strive for balance. In writing to the Philippians, Paul exhorted, “Let your reasonableness be known to everyone” (Phil. 4:5, ESV). The same apostle would admonish those in Ephesus to no longer be “tossed to and fro by the waves” (Eph. 4:14, ESV).

Nowhere is balance more needed than in the church. As Joshua prepared to fill the leadership void left by the death of Moses, he was charged to honor the law that bore his predecessor’s name. “Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left,” he was instructed, “that you may have good success wherever you go” (Josh. 1:7).

There are those today who are apparently unmindful of this foundational premise. Some are in need of greater respect for sacred authority, choosing to incorporate practices for which there is no divine sanction. Others would involve the body of Christ in a perpetual civil war of infighting and name-calling. Given their constantly combative disposition, it is doubtful that some would be enthused with a Christianity wholly devoid of the controversial.

Along these lines, legend has it that the apostle John was once observed playing with a tame partridge. For his efforts he was rebuked by an austere brother who accused him of wasting valuable time. John reportedly responded, “The bow that is always bent will soon cease to shoot straight” (quoted in Barclay, John: Vol. 1, 18). Even if apocryphal, are there no lessons to be gleaned from this exchange?
 
Schoolteachers, for example, witness inappropriate behavior in their students on a daily basis. If they corrected every instance, punishing each infraction, there would be little time for instruction. Seasoned teachers do not believe it is their responsibility to correct each slight misstep along the way, but rather to model the behavior they desire their students to eventually emulate. Rome was not built in a day, and the changes we desire to instill will not occur overnight, either.

On the other hand, to totally ignore misbehavior would also be ineffective. Students quickly recognize a teacher who is unable, or unwilling, to set definite boundaries and enforce certain rules. Younger teachers often fall into this trap in overzealous efforts to be admired by their pupils. Experience teaches the wise that friendliness and occasional firmness are not mutually exclusive. 

These principles are easily transferable to the religious arena. At times it is tempting to exclaim, to again borrow from John, that “the whole world lies under the sway” of various delusions (cf. 1 Jn. 5:19, NKJV). Nevertheless, to berate those honestly in error is counterproductive to success and is actually irreligious (cf. Mt. 5:22). If we begin by seeking to correct every false notion held, we will likely lose whatever chance we had with the potential convert.

At the same time, a refusal to address religious misconceptions is unacceptable, in spite of the ever-present potential for controversy. While at times unpleasant, we do no one any favors by ignoring issues which compromise the salvation of their soul. A true friend seeks the good of his neighbor, even if he must endure temporary pain to achieve it.

When meeting error, whether entertained by friend or foe, it is prudent to remember that “sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness” (Prov. 16:21, ESV). Why employ harsh words, which only engender hard feelings, when the Bible teaches that “a soft answer turns away wrath”? (cf. Prov. 15:1). Most individuals are neither impressed nor intimidated by those whose only recourse is to insult.
While it is impossible to encapsulate all that Christianity is, it is not nearly as difficult to recognize what Christianity is not. 

No one applies these principles with perfect consistency, nor does anyone practice these virtues flawlessly. Even on our best days, it is probable that our practice will lag somewhere behind our theory. This does not necessarily make us hypocrites. It does make us painfully human—those curious and fallible creatures Jesus died to save.

Share This

After reading Mark Lindley’s article, What is the Church of Christ? , a sincere reader asks:

“I am not a member of a labeled Church of Christ, but a non-denominational church… (although I understand that COC is not to be considered denominational) so according to the write up, I am considered part of the true Church of Christ,even though my church does not use that technical affiliation, correct? Our church has a solely biblical foundation and we believe also in the repentance and remission of sins and public confession of Christ through baptism. So to better word my question…Do you consider me part of the true Church of Christ, someone who will inherit the Kingdom of God?”

It always warms the heart to receive sincere, soul-searching questions from our readers. The one above is an especially good question, and deserves more space than can be afforded in the “comments” section, so we will include a full discussion of this question below.

First, we must consider one extremely important point: Only God has the right to say who is a Christian, and who is not. He has made plain in His word how one becomes a Christian, and that is what the church of Christ teaches. I am glad to hear that the people with whom you worship understand that a believer must repent and confess Jesus publicly as the Savior, and must be baptized into Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). If a repentant, confessing believer understands that baptism is for the remission of sins, and is necessary in order to be saved, and is not doing it for some other reason (to become a member of a denomination, as a “witness” that they are already saved, etc.), then he or she has been scripturally baptized. It is at this point that a person is made a Christian, Jesus Christ Himself adding that person to the church (Acts 2:41,47). Having been added to the church by Jesus, that person is a Christian, no matter what a man may say.

Second, we must realize that being a Christian is more than being baptized for the remission of sins. One must be born again (John 3:3-5; Rom. 6:3-8), but one must also live and worship faithfully (Rev. 2:10; Col. 1:21-23; 1 Tim. 4:16; Heb. 2:1). Jesus tells us that God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:24). We must abide in the Spirit, as well as the Truth, in order to be pleasing to God.

In response to your sincere question, I would say that those who repent and are baptized into Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) because they believe and openly confess that Jesus is the Son of the Living God (Matt. 16:16) are Christians and are members of the church that Jesus built, the church of Christ.

A third thing we must realize, though, is that the New Testament was often written to Christians who were erring in some manner. Paul said in Romans 6:17 that the Christians there had obeyed from the heart the “form of doctrine” to which they had been delivered. That being said, there is a manner of worship and life that God commands that is required for His people. The Corinthian church, for instance, was straying from the “form of doctrine” in many respects, and Paul wrote to correct them.

So, in the final analysis, we have to admit that:

1. Only God can say who is a Christian, and He has commanded that only those who have believed, repented, confessed Jesus as the Son of the Living God, and have been baptized into Christ for the purpose of remission of sins can rightfully be said to be members of the church of Christ. And all who have obeyed the Lord in this biblical manner are Christians, whether the building they worship in says “church of Christ” on the outside or not.

2. Christians who have been taught the truth and fail to worship according to the truth to which they were delivered (John 4:24; Rom. 6:17) are erring Christians. So it is very possible that one can be scripturally baptized and added to the church of Christ by Jesus Himself, and then immediately go into error by worshipping in a way God has not commanded, or by being part of a denominational organization which is not operating according to God’s commands.

There are many groups today who claim to be “non-denominational,” but still do not worship according to the New Testament practice. For instance, does your non-denominational group have elders who shepherd the congregation (Acts 20:17,28; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5)? Is the worship music vocal only (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)? Do they partake of the Lord’s supper every Lord’s day (Acts 20:7)? Are they abiding by the New Testament command that only men can lead and teach in the assembly (1 Tim. 2:12)? All of these things are part of the “form of doctrine” to which we were delivered.

If you wonder about salvation according to the Bible, and about New Testament worship, compare what your congregation teaches and practices with what the Bible teaches. The Searching for Truth DVD is an excellent online (and free) resource to study in this regard. I invite you to study this in your own home.

Someone may further ask about those who have been scripturally baptized, but have not been taught how to worship properly. I sincerely believe that those who study can see the inconsistencies with what they practice and what the Bible teaches. However, I am content to allow God to judge those who have been baptized into Christ for scriptural reasons, but are for some reason unaware of New Testament worship practices.

It is important to learn to worship Him as He desires, and not as man desires, though. My advice would be that if you have been baptized scripturally, but worship among a group that does not worship scripturally, to find a group of Christians who do worship according to spirit and truth.

I pray that those with whom you worship adhere not only to these characteristics which are distinctive of the Lord’s church, but all the precepts of God’s living and powerful word. If there is anything I can do to assist you further, please feel free to contact me.

May God bless you richly in all things according to His word.

Share This

It has never been a big secret that I am not the best yard-keeper in the world. Landscaping 101 was never in my course work, although I do come from a long line of greats in the lawn care industry (a story I will spare you for another day). My grass is always a little too high, the hedges always resemble the heads of 4-year-olds boys too long without a trim, and I can never quite seem to keep the “shin busters” (known to most people as “toys”) out of the front yard.

Because of this weakness on my part, it is with great anticipation that I look forward to a really good snow in the winter. Our recent snow here in McCrory was near perfect, except for the fact, as kids would argue, that it did not stick around long enough to keep them out of school longer.

As the snow descended, all the imperfections of my yard began to evaporate. The scruffy clover that had sprung up early began to fade away. The wiry-haired tangle of hedges began to resemble enormous cotton balls, and the shin busters transformed into elegant snow sculptures. Everything looked clean and pure, and all my shortcomings as a lawn keeper disappeared.

Unfortunately, the next morning’s sun took a heavy toll on our blanket of snow, and before I knew it my rough and tumble lawn was revealed once again.

Watching all this, it occurred to me how thankful we should be that God’s covering of sin is not so temporary. When He cleanses, He cleanses completely! He likens the purity from sin He offers to the cleanness of snow.

In Isaiah 1:18, God says, “Come now, let us reason together. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.” God wants us to come to Him for salvation through his Son (John 14:6), and when He forgives on behalf of His Son, He forgives completely. “As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us” (Psa. 103:12).

When we believe in Jesus as the Son of the Living God (Matt. 16:16; John 3:16); repent of our lives of sin (Acts 17:30; Luke 13:3,5) confess Him as Savior publicly (Matt. 10:32-33; Rom. 10:9-10) and are buried and raised with Him in baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-8), we are cleansed from all those imperfections and shortcomings of sin in our lives.

Unlike snow, though, this cleansing is forever. And as long as we walk in the light and admit our sins to Him (1 John 1:7-10), His cleansing continues. Thank God for the cleansing He offers through the blood of Christ!

Share This

From time to time it is asserted by some individuals that baptism in water plays no part whatsoever in the salvation of a man’s soul. However, to those who hold and teach such a view, 1 Peter 3:21 presents quite a stumbling block. Rather than teaching that baptism has no place in obtaining a right relationship with God, the apostle Peter instead teaches that baptism is the “answer of a good conscience toward God.”

Peter also answers one objection before it can be made in the mind of the reader: He is not talking about the power of water to wash away dirt and filth of the flesh, as with the Jewish purification rituals. Instead, Peter is talking about answering God’s offer of salvation with a step of active faith! As Paul would teach, baptism in water is about having faith in the power of the working of God (Col. 2:12). It is not about the water itself washing away sin, but about the regeneration of the Holy Spirit that takes place when one obeys the commands of the Lord (Mark 16:16).

There are other considerations in this matter, as well. If baptism is not necessary to be eternally saved, the following conclusions would be true.

If baptism is not necessary for salvation, then one can be saved without being a disciple of Christ. In the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) Jesus tells the disciples to go into the whole world and teach all nations. They were to make disciples by baptizing them and teaching them all things Jesus commanded.

If baptism is not necessary for salvation, then one can be saved without having their sins remitted. Acts 2:38 teaches that the purpose of baptism is for the remission of sins. Acts 22:16 shows Paul being taught to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Romans 6:11 shows that the baptized believer has “died to sin,” leading to the conclusion that the un-baptized believer is still alive to sin!

If baptism is not necessary for salvation, then one can be saved without being part of the Lord’s body. Acts 2:47 says those who had believed and been baptized were added by Jesus Himself to the church. Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that He would build His church. Paul tells us in Ephesians 1:22-23 that the body of Christ is the church. Ephesians 5:23 tells us that Jesus is the Savior of the body, which is the church. Now, can someone really be saved outside the church that Jesus Christ built?

My friends, the Lord Jesus Christ shed His precious blood to purchase the church (Acts 20:28). Let no one tell you the church is not important! Christ also ordained that one can only be part of His church, the kingdom of God, by being born of water and Spirit (John 3:3,5). If you would like to discuss this matter further, publicly or privately, please do not hesitate to contact me. God bless!

Share This

Although there are some sites that claim to serve churches of Christ, many are simply thinly-veiled attempted to push a progressive agenda of change upon the church by using mass media. These media outlets mainly focus on congregations that are changing the Lord’s worship to be more “seeker friendly.”

Since there exists an absence of media coverage of congregations successfully carrying out the Lord’s work but remaining true to the New Testament pattern, BrotherhoodNews.com was created.

Please let the members of you congregation know about this new work, and pray for its success.

Share This

It is surprising that when surveying standard commentaries on Acts 10:9-16 so little is found in the way of discussion on the meaning of Peter’s rooftop vision. With only the very rare exception,^aa nearly universal agreement is found that the rooftop vision ultimately meant that Gentiles were acceptable to God under the New Covenant. After all, Peter himself understood and applied the vision in this manner.^aa

However, the further question of whether the vision also displays God’s new attitude toward the previously delivered dietary laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 has not received much thorough discussion in popular commentaries. Some recent works brush the question aside by simply saying, “Scholars disagree on whether food laws were indeed abrogated by this vision.”^aa Other commentators assume the historical, conservative position that the vision did cancel (or at least reflect the cancellation of) food laws,^aa but leave some new questions from recent journal articles unanswered. Others assume a new view in which the vision is strictly parabolic, with the figures in the parable not being meant to apply literally.^aa

The purpose of this paper is to examine the narrative of Peter’s rooftop vision, study the passage in both the immediate context of Acts and the remote context of related biblical passages, and ascertain whether there is any merit to new arguments being put forth that Acts 10:9-16 has no bearing on the observation of Jewish dietary restrictions as laid out in the Old Testament.

It is the position of this paper that Peter’s rooftop vision did indeed have bearing on dietary restrictions previously observed under the Law of Moses, in addition to the primary meaning in regard to the acceptability of Gentiles under the New Covenant. The process that follows will first reflect a basic exegesis of the passage in question. All scripture passages will be quoted from the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Next, the passage will be approached by examining Peter’s behavior both before and after the vision in the biblical record. Then an examination of some arguments made against the passage referring to food laws will be presented before concluding the study.

Basic Exegesis of Acts 10:9-16

The section of Acts detailing the conversion of Cornelius is the longest single narrative in the book of Acts, covering 66 verses from Acts 10:1 to Acts 11:18. Cornelius’ conversion and the narrative of Acts 2 seem to be “anchor points” for the record of the early church found in Acts.

Embedded within this important section, we find the narrative of Peter’s rooftop vision beginning in Acts 10:9. Just before the narrative of the conversion of Cornelius, Peter has been in Joppa where he healed Tabitha (Acts 9:36-41). Following this, we read that Peter stays “many days” in Joppa with Simon, a tanner (Acts 9:42-43). A tanner’s occupation was to make leather from animal skins, and the trade was undesirable for a Jew due to the necessity of handling dead animals.^aa Because the trade utilized sea water and created a foul stench, the homes of tanners were most often located by the sea, as we find in this case (Acts 10:6). More discussion will be presented on Peter’s staying with a tanner, but for now it will suffice to place Peter in Joppa at a home near the sea.

At the beginning of chapter 10, we find a description of the subject of the coming conversion. Cornelius is a man living in Caesarea. His name was a very common one in the Roman world, because in 82 B.C. a man named Cornelius Sulla liberated ten thousand slaves and gave them his name. Therefore, it is possible that Cornelius was a descendent of Cornelius Sulla.^aa Caesarea was a coastal city set about 30 miles north of Joppa. Serving as the Roman center of administration of Palestine, the city had a temple dedication to Caesar, as well as a famous harbor. The population of Caesarea was mostly Gentiles.^aa

The Cornelius in Acts 10 was a centurion of the “Italian cohort” (NASB). Other translations, such as the New King James Version and the New International Version read “Italian regiment.” A cohort was a tenth part of a Roman Legion, or about 600 men. Bruce comments that the number of such a unit in this time period would have been more along the lines of 1,000 men.^aa

Cornelius was a “devout man,” according to Acts 10:2, who feared God, gave alms to the Jewish people, prayed to God continually. He was obviously a Gentile, as is evidenced by the whole account of the gospel now being taught to that group. He was also not a proselyte, meaning a full convert to Judaism, since that would have made him “clean” to the Jews, and thus Acts 11:3 would not make sense. Also, in Acts 10:22, we read that Cornelius was a “righteous man,” and was “well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews.” Therefore, we understand by these facts that Cornelius was a man who believed in the God of Israel, prayed to Him, gave alms and was in some sense a follower of the Jewish religion, but was still a Gentile, and not a proselyte. While he was praying (Acts 10:30), an angel appears to Cornelius in a vision and urges him to send to Joppa for Simon called Peter, who could be found at the seaside home of Simon the tanner.

The scene is now set. Simon Peter is in Joppa, Cornelius is in Caesarea. Cornelius has received a vision to send for Peter. In Acts 10:9 we see that on the next day, as these men from Cornelius are nearing the city of Joppa, Peter goes up onto the housetop to pray. Rooftops were common places for prayer, privacy, and drying plant matter in biblical times.^aa Usually they were flat, and constructed by laying plaster of mud and straw over tree boughs or wooden rafters. They often had “booths” constructed of boughs or rushes that were used as sleeping places in the summertime.^aa The roof would have been a natural place for Peter to go to pray, since it would separate him from the activity going on in the house. There was the added bonus of the possibility of cool ocean breezes to distract his mind and body from the heat of the day.^aa

The Bible text tells us that it was about the sixth hour, which was noon. The normal set times for prayer in Judaism are in the early morning in connection with the morning sacrifice, at the ninth hour of the day (3 p.m.), then again at sunset.^aa Although the noon hour was not one of these times of public prayer, it is possible that some Jews prayed at this time as well.^aa Whatever the case, as Longnecker states, the “stated hours for prayer, while prescriptive, are not restrictive.”^aa While the concept of whether or not Peter was praying at a prescribe time may seem inconsequential at this point, the concept of Peter being an “observant Jew” will come into play in our later discussion.

In verse 10 we read that Peter became hungry and wanted to eat. Probably he communicated this fact to those in the house, who began preparations. But before the meal was ready, Peter “fell into a trance (ekstasis),” or a “state of being in which consciousness is wholly or partially suspended.”^aa There is some difficulty with that definition, since if one has his consciousness suspended, it would be difficult to listen and ask questions. The text reads as if Peter was fully alert during the vision, but we cannot know fully his feelings and sensations, other than what is recorded in scripture.

Longnecker suggests that after ordering the food and before falling into the trance, Peter became “it seems, somewhat drowsy.”^aa Does Longnecker get this idea of drowsiness from the text? Although some might say Peter merely had a “dream” that perhaps bore no miraculous nature, there is no information in the text that suggests Peter was asleep, or even half asleep. Neither man, Cornelius or Peter, was “asleep,” but rather both testify to being in a state of prayer. Longnecker’s suggestion seems to go beyond the text.

Bruce comments that it was “no doubt because of his hunger that the vision centered around food.”^aa However, one wonders if Peter had of been having a backache, if the vision would have centered around medical treatment. It seems more appropriate to say that it was because God chose this opportune time to impress upon Peter the message carried by the vision, and the symbols in the vision carried weight in a way that other symbols would not. The time and circumstances were right, with Cornelius’ men literally at Simon the tanner’s doorstep, for Peter to be urged on to preach to the Gentiles, and because of this God took this opportunity to goad Peter on to utilize the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt.16:19) given him by Christ to open the door to the kingdom of heaven for the Gentiles, as he did previously for the Jews (Acts 2).

Next, in verse 11, Peter sees the “sky opened up” and something like a “great sheet” coming down. Speculation abounds as to why a “sheet” was part of this vision. Since some middle eastern houses have awnings,^aa some have suggested a flapping awning became part of Peter’s vision.^aa A sail on the nearby sea has also been suggested.^aa One far out—and perhaps tongue in cheek—suggestion comes from the “Cotton Patch Version” of the Bible: the sheet-like object was a tablecloth.^aa The object being “like a sheet” and “four cornered” seems description enough, without having to nail down more detail.

More important than the container was the contents of the sheet, for inside were all kinds of four-footed animals, crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air (Acts 10:12). These animals were both clean and unclean, all mixed together. Quadrupeds that both chewed the cud and had a split hoof were considered clean according to Lev. 11:3. But if “all kinds” of quadrupeds were present in the sheet, obviously there were unclean animals. Similarly, there must have been some birds among the “all” that were restricted (Lev. 11:13-19), and likewise with the “crawling things” (Lev. 11:20-23). So there can be no doubt that both clean and unclean were present in the sheet.

Then comes the command that must have startled Peter: “Get up, Peter, kill and eat” (Acts 10:13). The voice did not tell Peter to “arise and kill and eat the clean animals.” In fact, the voice made no differentiation between any of the creatures in the sheet. Obviously this offended Peter a little, as we can see from his reaction in Acts 10:14: “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” But in answer to Peter’s protest, the voice states, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” (Acts 10:15). The text tells us this happened three times, and then the sheet was taken back up into the sky.

Peter’s Actions are our Best Evidence

Now that we have performed a basic exegesis of the passage, let us move on to a more detailed examination of the actions of Peter before and after his vision in regard to food laws. After all, scholars can speculate a great deal, but what the scriptures actually say has to be the resting place. So if we want to know whether Peter’s vision has any reflection on food laws, we must consult the hard evidence in the Bible.

Peter’s Actions Before the Vision. First an examination of Peter’s behavior toward Gentiles and the dietary laws will be undertaken. The most notable evidence in regard to Peter’s observance of dietary restrictions comes from the very passage under study. By saying, “I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean” (Acts 10: 14), Peter identifies his position on food laws. He obviously still observed the food restrictions of the Law of Moses.

The second evidence to notice is common sense: Peter could not have been fellowshipping with Gentiles, or else there would be no need for God to send him this vision! Additionally, when Peter finally comes into contact with Cornelius in Acts 10:28, he tells the crowd of many Gentiles that “you know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him…” This statement puts Peter solidly on the side of not associating with or visiting Gentiles. There was no specific law given that prevented association with Gentiles, but the dietary restrictions and ceremonial law made mixing with them a near impossibility.^aa It was because the Gentiles handled food in ways not in accordance with the Law of Moses that Jews did not associate with Gentiles. As Bruce writes,

“The most ordinary kinds of food, such as bread, milk, or olive oil, coming from Gentiles, might not be eaten by strict Jews, not to mention flesh, which might have come from a forbidden animal or from one that had been sacrificed to a pagan divinity, and which in any case contained blood. Hence, all forms of intercourse with Gentiles, to accept their hospitality and sit at table with them was the most intolerable.”^aa

So Peter’s pre-vision state was strict observance to both the food laws and separation from Gentiles. This is evidenced not only by what he said in response to God’s message to “arise, Peter, kill and eat,” but also by his own understanding of the law as he himself stated in Acts 10:28.

It might be mentioned here that some have seen in Peter’s lodging with a tanner in Joppa evidence that Peter was a somewhat relaxed in his observance of the laws of clean and unclean, since tanners worked with dead animals and could cause a Jew to be ceremonially unclean.^aa Miller, however, points out that the prohibitions involving the uncleanness of dead animals “applied only to those that died of natural causes (Lev. 11:31-40); otherwise even the priests would have been rendered unclean in their offering of sacrifices.^aa This would seem logically correct, and the alternative would seem to go against what we see in scripture of Peter’s pre-vision attention to food restrictions and maintaining ceremonial cleanness by steering clear of the Gentiles.

Peter’s actions after the vision. Following this vision on the rooftop, we see a change in Peter’s actions toward the Gentiles. We notice that directly after the vision, Peter is “perplexed” by the meaning (Acts 10:17). God must have understood that Peter was not quite grasping the concept of Gentile inclusion from the vision alone, because the Spirit tells Peter in Acts 10:20 to go with the men who have come without misgivings, because “I have sent them Myself.” Surely Peter had no doubt that the men who had come were Gentiles, or at least messengers from a Gentile, because in Acts 10:22 the messengers describe Cornelius to Peter as a “centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews.” This is obviously a description of a man who is not an Israelite. Peter knows he must go to a Gentile due to the urging of both the vision, and the voice of the Spirit.

Furthermore, we see that Peter did not merely go and preach to them, but also “went in and ate with them” (Acts 11:3). This is an important point to remember when we review some of the newer arguments against Peter’s vision referring to food laws. It is clear that Peter’s main offense in the eyes of the circumcised in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2) was not the preaching, but the “going in” to the house of Gentiles and eating at their table.

We see further evidence of Peter’s associating with Gentiles and eating with them in one of Paul’s letters. In Gal. 2:11-12, we are told that Paul stood in opposition to Peter at Antioch because Peter was at first eating with the Gentiles, but when “certain men” came from James, Peter began to withdraw from them out of fear of the “party of the circumcision.” So here Peter is eating with the Gentiles, and since we previously established the necessity of Peter’s vision to get him to go in to Gentiles in Acts 10, it is clear that this event recounted in Galatians must refer to a period after Peter’s vision. It also seems to fit within a logical timeline of Acts and Paul’s movements.^aa

Furthermore, it is likely that this event also took place before the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.^aa so we have a further instance of Peter’s actions after his vision there. In Acts 15:8-9, Peter alludes to the conversion of Cornelius and the other Gentiles, stressing that God has made no distinction between.

From these scriptural references, it is clear that following his vision, Peter did eat with Gentiles, though he withdrew from them in one instance for fear of the wrath of the party of the circumcision.

Therefore, it is evident that we see a change in behavior in Peter following his vision of the clean and unclean animals. He began both “going in” to the homes of Gentiles, and eating with them. His withdrawal from this does not signal a disbelief in his new-found attitude toward the Gentiles, but rather seems to be a minor failing on Peter’s part to remain faithful to the teaching of the vision. After all, Paul opposed Peter on this issue because Peter was clearly in the wrong (Gal. 2:11).

Men, Meat, or Both?

In the final analysis, does Peter’s vision refer to men only, meat only, or does it have a double meaning? From the evidence of scripture, it is absolutely certain that Peter’s vision referred to men, which is almost universally accepted. However, some writers contend that the vision had no bearing or reflection whatsoever on the dietary restrictions of the Law of Moses.

One recent writer has presented the argument that Gentile Christians in general have misunderstood Jewish food laws, and because of this misunderstanding they—especially since the third century—have mistakenly deduced that all food restrictions have been lifted, when in truth only some have been.^aa Peter J. Tomson puts forth the idea that there are different kinds of food laws in Judaism. First there are laws regarding purity, which have to do with being rendered ceremonially unclean. Impurity, Tomson says, is a temporary status. Then there are laws that are dietary in nature, which Tomson says still apply today to all Jews, apparently no matter whether they are Christian or not.^aa These are the laws about clean and unclean animals, restrictions on the consumption of blood, and the combination of meat and milk.

Tomson argues that the reason Gentiles were to be avoided was because their foods may have been tainted by idolatry, and thus would render Jews ceremonially impure. The idea was that idolatry conveys impurity to objects and humans involved with it. Therefore, non-Jewish lands, lands with Gentile majorities, and even Gentile homes within Israel were shunned for this reason. All Gentiles were thought to be idolaters, and contact with them should be avoided.^aa

Further, Tomson says that the narrative of Peter’s vision in Acts 10 has to do with impurity and idolatry, not that Peter should eat unclean foods. In other words, far from being a sign of lifted restrictions, it simply meant that Gentiles would not render him ceremonially impure. In Acts 10, Tomson says, “Jewish sensitivities about relations with Gentiles are at stake, not biblical dietary laws.”^aa

While the idea that non-Jewish Christians would misunderstand the food laws of Judaism is understandable, many scholars disagree that there is such a separation between the concepts of ceremonial impurity and dietary laws at work in this passage. Polhill in particular objects to such a separation in this text:

“Some scholars feel that Peter’s vision dealt more with food laws than with interaction with Gentiles. This is to overlook the fact that the two are inextricably related. In Lev. 20:24b-26 the laws of clean and unclean are linked precisely to Israel’s separation from the rest of the nations.”^aa

Polhill goes on to say that these food restrictions were extremely problematic for Jewish Christians in reaching out with the gospel to the Gentiles. “One simply could not dine in a Gentile’s home without inevitably transgressing those laws.”^aa This could result not only from eating unclean flesh, but also clean flesh that had been prepared in a non-kosher fashion.

Jon C. Olson sees evidence that Peter’s vision had nothing to do with the lifting of food restrictions in the simple idea that Jewish Christians continued to observe biblical dietary law.^aa This does not seem convincing, however, when we remember that Jewish and Gentile Christians alike continued to practice, from time to time, things not in accordance with God’s will.^aa The epistles of Paul, for instance, are in many cases correcting errors being taught and practiced in the early church.

Perhaps some of the most well-reasoned argumentation against Peter’s vision referring to dietary restrictions come from Miller, who lays out the possibilities regarding two different possibilities of meaning. The two possibilities are that the vision refers to men and meat, or men only. In reference to the “men and meat” possibility, Miller spends considerable time refuting the ideas of Dibelius, whose man argument is that when recounting his vision to the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 11:5-10), Peter is answering the charge of Acts 11:3 that he has eaten with the uncircumcised. Dibelius goes on to say, “obviously, this has involved eating that which is unclean.”^aa

But does the text actually say Peter ate unclean foods in Acts 11:3? It does not. Rather, the text says he ate with uncircumcised men. Miller’s point seems to gain strength on this point. He further points out that Peter’s objections to being in the presence of Cornelius in his home seem to center around associating with or visiting him, not with food.

Miller also makes the point that it was doubtful that Cornelius, a man who prayed, gave alms, and feared God, would maintain such a home that would have unclean food in the presence of a devout Jew.^aa Cornelius’ good reputation among the Jews may make it likely that he followed their food laws.

“Even if Corneliuss kitchen was not kosher, it is hard to imagine that one so sympathetic toward the Jewish nation would be so insensitive as to offer unclean food to his guest, for whose arrival he had four days to prepare and at whose feet he fell at their first meeting.”^aa

However, using this same reasoning, it would also seem strange that a man that knew so much about Jewish law and custom would fall at the feet of a man. But, whatever the case, Miller here seems to be guilty of the same thing of which he accuses Dibelius, going beyond the text.

Finally, let us look at another of Miller’s points in regard to the meaning of Peter’s vision. Miller says that many writers claim that the Gentiles were now acceptable to God only because the barrier of the Law as symbolized by the food laws was first abolished. This interpretation, he says, is usually supported externally by pronouncements in the epistles “or even earlier pronouncements of purity by Jesus and internally by the alleged meaning of Peter’s vision itself.”^aa While this is true enough, Miller acts as if seeking clarification from more clear scripture is an incorrect way to seek meaning. While on the one hand we can be sure that Luke’s meaning is accurate, we must also understand that all of scripture agrees with itself, and it is right and proper to interpret scripture in this manner.

On this point, we can look at other scripture and understand that indeed food laws have been lifted. In particular in Mark 7:14-19, Jesus explains that there is nothing outside of a man that defiles him. Mark gives the parenthetical explanation that “thus He declared all foods clean.” Some writers, however, would argue that this “all foods” does not refer foods outside the allowable for a Jew under his dietary restrictions. We previously discussed Tomson’s view that there was a difference between Jewish dietary law and laws of ceremonial purity. He declares in regard to this section of Mark,

“Indeed the passage can be read as simply stating that Jesus, without ever thinking of food a Jew does not eat, declared the food which passes through the intestines clean just because he rejected the transferal of impurity by food to star with. This solution is simple, is based on the major manuscripts, and therefore seems preferable.”^aa

As “preferable” as it may seem, there are problems with this view. The first is that Mark seems to be writing to a Gentile Christian audience, possibly Roman.^aa One reason we can understand this is that Mark seems to explain practices of the Jewish Pharisees. This can be seen especially in the passage in question, where in Mark 7:3-4 the author explains the Pharisees’ washing procedures. If it is true that Mark is writing to non-Jews, it would seem very strange and improper for Mark to make such a wide-angle pronouncement in verse 19 that Jesus by saying this declared all foods clean. A non-Jew would read this just like we do, that all foods were declared clean. With this in mind, Tomson’s point does not seem to carry much weight.

As for the argument that Jesus was referring only spiritual impurity from unwashed hands, it seems self-evident that the saying in Mark 7:18 is broad in scope.

“…it is not just the Pharisaic halakah of washing hands, either, that is in view. The saying is concerned with things entering into the man from outside and thereby defiling him. What else could that be, except foods? Consequently, the commentary supplied in verses 18 f. does not restrict the scope of the saying; it only states explicitly what is implied in the logion itself.”^aa

Some would argue perhaps that it was “dirt” that Jesus was referring to, but when Jesus says “whatever” enters a man body cannot defile him, He does not seem to leave any doubt about the wide-ranging nature of the saying.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, our understanding that dietary restrictions are no longer in effect do not hinge solely on Acts 10:9-16. After all, we have clear teachings in other places that tell us the Law has passed away (Rom. 7:6; 10:4; Col. 2:14) and that food does not matter (Rom. 14:17; Col. 2:16). The dietary laws are caught up with these and annulled.

For a Jew, a Gentile was unclean because he did not keep the same laws as Israel. If they did keep the Law, they could become a proselyte and be fully clean. It seems that perhaps logic should come into play on the matter in the end. If food laws were not, in fact, done away with, would God have given such a vision to a man like Peter to move him to action? Would God give a vision of an unlawful act to encourage a good behavior? This seems unlikely.

If a Gentile is considered clean and is allowed to eat what he wants, but a Jew is still under food restriction, there is still a separation between Jew and Gentile. But God has declared that Peter, and everyone to follow, should call no man unclean, and we are all one, Jew and Gentile, in Christ Jesus.

1. Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, London: Clowes, 1956, pp. 111-12. He proposes that since Peter’s rooftop vision deals with food, and the narrative in which it is “placed” in Acts is about the Gentiles, the vision material might have been taken out of context by Luke and applied to the Gentile situation. Dibelius believed the vision referred to food only, and that Luke later applied it to men. While this argument weakens the coherency of the Bible, it strengthens the idea that the vision refers to literal food.aaa
2. In Acts 10:28, Peter says God has shown him that he should call no man unclean. In Acts 11 Peter recounts his vision in response to the charge that he “went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them.”aaa
3. Ajith Fernando, The NIV Application Commentary, Acts, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998, p. 321.aaa
4. F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, New International Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Bruce, for instance, holds the “two fold meaning” view, but could not address arguments made after publication of his commentary on Acts. Similarly, R.N. Longnecker does not address any objections to the conservative view in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 9aaa
5. L.J. Ogilvie, The Preacher’s Commentary – Acts, Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1983, p. 179. Ogilvie assumes this position, although he offers no argumentation to support it, or examination of other views.aaa
6. J. Orr, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1939.aaa
7. Richard N. Longnecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 9, John and Acts, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981, pp. 384-385.aaa
8. Fernando, p. 318.aaa
9. Bruce says that since there were no legionary troops in Judea between A.D. 6 and 66, these would have been auxiliary forces with a paper strength of 1,000 men, pp. 203-04.aaa
10. See Zeph. 1:5; Josh. 2:6; 1 Sam. 9:25aaa
11. William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, pp. 255-56.aaa
12. Fernando, p. 320.aaa
13. Longnecker, p. 293.aaa
14. Bruce, p. 205. See also Dan. 6:10; Psalm 55:17aaa
15. Longnecker, p. 387.aaa
16. Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, BDAG 3rd edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. p. 309.aaa
17. Bruce, p. 205aaa
18. Smith, p. 256aaa
19. Ibid, p. 387aaa
20. David Roper, Truth for Today Commentary, Acts 1-14, Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 2001, p. 387. Roper quotes Clarence Jordan’s Cotton Patch Version of Luke and Acts.aaa
21. John B. Polhill, The New American Commentary, vol. 26, Acts. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992, p. 258.aaa
22. Bruce, p. 210.aaa
23. William Neil, Acts, New Century Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973, 136.aaa
24. Chris A. Miller, “Did Peter’s Vision in Acts 10 Pertain to Men or the Menu?” Bibliotheca Sacra July-September 2002, p. 303-04.aaa
25. Scott McKnight, The NIV Application Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995, p. 100. McKnight has a good discussion of reasons to believe that the “other place” Peter removed himself to in Acts 12:17 was Antioch, where this event took place.aaa
26. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990, p. 247ff. Hemer shows reason to believe that Galatians was written prior to the Jerusalem council by showing a correlation between Paul’s visits to Jerusalem in Acts 9 and 11 with his own stated journeys there in Gal. 1 and 2.aaa
27. Peter J. Tomson, “Jewish Food Laws in Early Christian Discourse,” Semeia no 86 1999, p 193-211.aaa
28. Ibid, p. 199.aaa
29. Tomson, p. 200.aaa
30. Tomson, p. 207.aaa
31. Polhill, p. 255.aaa
32. Ibid.aaa
33. John C. Olson, “Which Differences Are Blessed? From Peter’s Visions to Paul’s Letters,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 37 no 3-4, Sum-Fall 2000, p. 457.aaa
34. Some notable cases, of course, may be found in the Corinthians’ perversion of the Lord’s supper, 1 Cor. 11, and the Judaizing influence upon the church at Galatia as reflected in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.aaa
35. Dibelius, p. 112.aaa
36. Miller, p. 309.aaa
37. Ibid, p. 310.aaa
38. Miller, p. 302.aaa
39. Tomson, p. 206.aaa
40. D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992, p. 99.aaa
41. Heikki Raisanen, “Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7:15,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, No. 16, 1982, p. 81.aaa

Share This

In what do you trust? Many people and things vie for our confidence, and the Bible is replete with warnings about putting trust in the wrong place. There are specific things on which we are not to rely.

Idols

Judah’s king, Ahaz, put stock in idols because he thought they had helped Damascus beat him. “For he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus that had defeated him and said, ‘Because the gods of the kings of Syria helped them, I will sacrifice to them that they may help me.’ But they were the ruin of him and of all Israel” (2 Chron 28:23 ESV). Isaiah prophesied, “They are turned back and utterly put to shame, who trust in carved idols, who say to metal images, ‘You are our gods’” (Is 42:17). And, speaking of idols, the Psalmist wrote, “Those who make them become like them, so do all who trust in them!” (Ps 135:18). Our society is not geared toward bowing to an image of stone or wood, though literal idols are still to be seen in many places of the world. But we can fashion our own custom idol out of other material. It may be a boat, a car, a house, a job. Anything that displaces God in our hearts becomes, in essence, an idol, and we may as well be bowing down in front of it.

Self

Solomon put it very succinctly. “Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool…” (Prov 28:26). In Babylonian captivity, Ezekiel described Judah as having this fatal flaw. “But you trusted in your beauty and played the whore because of your renown and lavished your whorings on any passerby; your beauty became his” (Eze 16:15). On one occasion, Jesus told a parable “…to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt” (Lk 18:9). And, who can forget the immortal words of Jeremiah? “I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps” (Jer 10:23). We are warned not to have too grandiose a picture of ourselves (Rom 12:3). We should be a confident people, but our confidence is through and due to the Lord (2 Cor 3:4). The humanist denies God and exalts self. The Christian exalts God and denies self (Mt 16:24).

Others

When he had reigned for thirty-nine years, King Asa had a severe disease in his feet. “Yet even in his disease he did not seek the LORD, but sought help from physicians” (2 Chron 16:12). Of course, there is nothing wrong with seeing a doctor. However, to place confidence in a doctor while ignoring the One who made the doctor is foolish. The Psalmist contrasts the option of relying on others versus relying on God and says, “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation” (Ps 146:3). Events beyond our control may hinder the best of us from keeping his word. We may say a thing and sincerely mean it—yet find that we cannot live up to it or we may even forget it. God labors under no such impairment. Solomon asserted, “Trusting in a treacherous man in time of trouble is like a bad tooth or a foot that slips” (Prov 25:19).

Nation

“Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD!…The Egyptians are man, and not God, and their horses are flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD stretches out his hand, the helper will stumble, and he who is helped will fall, and they will all perish together” (Is 31:1,3). Nations rise and fall at God’s allowance and discretion (cf. Dan 4:25). It is most unwise for any people to put too much stock in their country’s perceived greatness or military prowess. America may have the military might to blow every other country to the moon, but, if God wants us defeated, He has no shortage of means to do just that. What this—and every other—country needs to do is focus first on the Lord and righteousness, then depend on His help in tough times. “The king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength” (Ps 33:16). “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God” (Ps 20:7). And, in a verse America desperately needs to take to heart, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov 14:34).

Money

“Whoever trusts in his riches will fall…” (Prov 11:28). How easy it is to trust in the dollar to see us through—especially if you’ve got several of them stashed away. Scripture has much to say about money: the acquiring of it, the spending of it, and our general attitude toward it. Paul instructed Timothy, “As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy” (1 Tim 6:17). Money is powerless to get any man into heaven; but, it can be very persuasive in helping keep a man out of heaven. If you love money too much, then better to give it all away now and be rid of the temptation (cf. Lk 18:22). Otherwise, pray diligently for wisdom and the right attitude toward wealth. When the dollar begins to detract from your trust in God, then, at that point, you are too rich for your own good.

Lies

“This is your lot, the portion I have measured out to you, declares the LORD, because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies” (Jer 13:25). As it was Judah’s lot in Old Testament days, so it is the lot of most people today—they rely on a lie. Anything that contradicts a single point of the gospel of Christ is a lie. The devil has the confidence of most today, not because he earned the trust, but because of his deceptive lies of pleasure and prosperity outside of the truth. “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thes 2:11,12). If a man rejects the truth, what alternative is there but that he embraces a lie? And that is what God allows to happen. But, confidence in a lie is always ill-placed.

Misplaced trust is not the ticket to spiritual growth and real happiness. If we are not to trust in all these things, then what is left as a proper object of our reliance? None could put it better than an inspired Solomon when he penned, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths” (Prov 3:5,6).

Share This

Just when you thought the pro-homosexual movement had gotten as bad as it could, along comes this decision by the United States Court of Appeals, as reported by Apologetics Press.

According to the news story, the decision upholds the rights of public school teachers to not only read pro-homosexual material (story books, etc.) to students during class, but also affirms the teacher’s “right” to withhold such information from parents.

Christians with children in public schools in Massachusetts are faced with quite a problem. School teachers can force-feed the students the pro-homosexual worldview, and not even notify the parents of the indoctrination going on.

Chalk up another win for the pro-gay movement, at the expense of the Christian to raise his children as God directs.

Share This

As anyone familiar with the Bible could tell you, wells serve as a backdrop to many narratives. It was Isaac who “digged again” the wells of his father Abraham, after the Philistines had stopped them in their jealousy (cf. Gen. 26:14, 18). Isaac’s son, Jacob, was the proprietor of a well that would later be the centerpiece of a famous New Testament discussion between the Savior and a Samaritan woman (cf. Jn. 4). It is a decidedly less-famous well in rural Alabama, though, that I wish to briefly make reference.

My paternal grandfather was born in 1909. He grew up in the South and was already a young adult by the time of the Great Depression. He married in 1933 and would go on to raise six children. Having spent much of his life on a farm, he had many interesting anecdotes to relate. While he relished sharing his stories with anyone who would listen, especially did he enjoy regaling his grandchildren with tales from the past. One choice nugget involved the well from which the family drew their water.

Those who have sampled “well water” often comment upon its superiority to tap water, due to the fact that water from underground sources seems to be colder and crisper. After growing accustomed to such water, and knowing the source from which it springs, the slightest change in its taste can be immediate cause for concern.

Along those lines, perhaps after noticing a pungent taste in their water, and realizing the family cat had been missing for some time, my grandfather’s children came to a rather unsettling conclusion. For the sake of brevity—and decency—I will allow the reader the put the pieces of this puzzle together. Suffice it to say, the country maxim “What’s in the well will be in the bucket” never rang truer.

Today, it is not out of the question to ask, “What’s in our ‘bucket’?” What we say when caught off guard or in heated moments can often be a ready indicator of our spiritual well-being, or lack thereof. As Christ indicated, it is “out of the abundance of the heart” that “the mouth speaketh” (Mt. 12:34).

Oftentimes, the “Sunday speak” of those who profess to be Christians is far different from their workplace vernacular. It is beyond embarrassing to admit that at times it is hoped some will never confess to being a member of the “church of Christ” lest others believe all Christians conduct themselves in similar fashion. As James would say, “My brethren, these things ought not so to be” (Jas. 3:10).

Should we happen upon a police officer while traveling a mile or two per hour faster than we should, what sentiments are first and foremost in our hearts? Should we hit our thumb with a hammer, what is our reaction? It might be best for a few to “swear off” the use of all power tools, lest they “swear off,” literally. Others resort to milder, though similar, forms to express their displeasure. It seems never to have occurred to some to simply say, “Ow.”

As Christians, we are to “let [our] speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that [we] may know how [we] ought to answer every man” (Col. 4:6). We should utter “sound speech, that cannot be condemned” (Tit. 2:8), refusing to let any “corrupt communication proceed out of [our] mouth” (Eph. 4:29).

This is by far the wisest course to pursue, especially in view of the fact that for “every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” (Mt. 12:36). Do we have “honest and good” hearts (cf. Lk. 8:15)? As Christ could have told us, what’s in the well will be in the bucket.

Share This

Have you ever regretted a course of action because you later learned something you had not known earlier? At times serious mistakes are made which would have been averted had the truth surfaced (or been accepted) in time. Perhaps the ultimate case of this is described by Paul when he says that, had the rulers understood the gospel, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8). What a tragedy! There are other examples.

Given the choice of where to take his herds, Abraham’s nephew, Lot, chose the Jordan plain and moved to a town called Sodom (Gen 13:11,12). If only Lot had known that move would eventuate in the deaths of his wife and his sons-in-law, the loss of his house and, evidently, his wealth, surely he would have chosen differently. But Lot did not know.

Jacob had twelve sons, but favored the one named Joseph (Gen 37:3). One day Jacob sent Joseph to Shechem to see how the others were doing. The other brothers’ growing dislike for Joseph, likely exacerbated by Jacob’s favoritism and Joseph’s dreams, culminated in Joseph’s being thrown in a pit and, later, sold into slavery. Having rid themselves of their nuisance of a brother, the other sons take his coat, dip it in goat blood, and pawn it off to their hapless father, who concludes—just as planned—that Joseph must be dead. Of course, the truth was quite to the contrary and Joseph would eventually rise to prominence in Egypt, with the rest of his alienated family oblivious to it all. If only Jacob had known the sorrow it would bring, surely he would never have sent Joseph to check on his older brothers in Shechem. But Jacob did not know.

After the successful campaign against Jericho, Joshua sent a 3,000 man contingency against the small town of Ai (Josh 7:2-5). Expecting an easy victory, the Israelites instead found themselves routed by Ai’s inhabitants, who succeeded in killing 36 Israelis. The problem traced to a single soldier named Achan who had stolen from Jericho certain items belonging to God. With sin in the camp, the Lord refused victory to Israel until the matter was cleared up. If only Joshua had known his initial military action against Ai would lead to an embarrassing defeat and the deaths of 36 of his men, surely he would not have ordered the attack. But Joshua did not know.

And what of Sodom? That wicked city was destroyed by God in Genesis 19 for its sins, including homosexuality. Remarkably, centuries later Jesus referred to this city as he rebuked another one called Capernaum. Matthew records His comments: “And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you” (Mt 11:23,24 ESV). In other words, if only Sodom had known about the Savior and the works of which He was capable, Sodom would have repented and, therefore, avoided destruction. But Sodom did not know. Capernaum did know—and that is precisely why Jesus says judgment will come down even harder on her than on Sodom. Capernaum’s greater opportunity heightened divine expectation and increased the guilt of failing to live up to it.

Ignorance is not bliss—especially when it comes to knowledge of the gospel. That a person can live and die in the United States and not know saving truth is explainable on one basis: he did not want to know it. With His providing the gospel message, along with the promise of helping us find it if we look (Mt 7:7), God has taken away the excuse of ignorance. Be sure you do not get to the day of judgment and say, “Lord, if only I had known…” ?

Share This