AT CAESAREA THERE was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”
4Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.
The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. 6He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.”
7When the angel who spoke to him had gone, Cornelius called two of his servants and a devout soldier who was one of his attendants. 8He told them everything that had happened and sent them to Joppa.
9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
17While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. 18They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.
19While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. 20So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”
21Peter went down and said to the men, “I’m the one you’re looking for. Why have you come?”
22The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” 23Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.
The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went along. 24The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”
27Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. 29So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”
30Cornelius answered: “Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me 31and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. 32Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ 33So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.”
Original Meaning
ACTS 10:1–11:18 IS the longest single narrative in Acts (sixty-six verses). Because of its great length we will divide our treatment of this narrative into two studies. The space given suggests that the events surrounding Cornelius’s conversion were important to Luke. The centurion’s vision is described four times (vv. 3–6, 22, 30–32; 11:13–14) and Peter’s twice (vv. 9–16; 11:4–10), and Peter alludes to the events again at the Jerusalem Council (15:7–11). As we see the events unfolding in Acts, we realize that this episode is a crucial step in the progress of the church in fulfilling the Great Commission.
This narrative has often been organized into seven different scenes, and we will follow this analysis here. This first study will cover the first four scenes of the narrative.
Scene One: Cornelius’s Vision (10:1–8)
CORNELIUS LIVED IN Caesarea (v. 1), a seaport on the Mediterranean coast that was rebuilt by Herod the Great and named after Caesar Augustus. It was the center of the Roman administration of the province of Palestine and “served as a showpiece for Roman culture”;1 it even had a temple dedicated to Caesar. The Jews hated Caesarea, calling it “the daughter of Edom,” and “would often speak of it as though it were no part of Judea.”2 The population there had more Gentiles than Jews. According to Josephus, riots between these two groups sparked off the Jewish war against Rome in A.D. 66.3 Josephus also claims that the entire Jewish population of 20,000 in Caesarea was massacred in A.D. 66.4
Cornelius was a centurion, which means that he was nominally in command of a hundred Roman soldiers. Centurions generally appear in a positive light in the New Testament. The first Gentile to whom Jesus ministered in the Gospels was a centurion, and it was in connection with his faith that Jesus said, “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11). It was a centurion who said at the cross, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (27:54).
Cornelius “and all his family were devout and God-fearing” (v. 2). There is some debate today about the meaning of the designation “God-fearer.” It is usually held that God-fearers were those who attended the synagogue and honored Jewish laws and customs but had not been incorporated into the Jewish community (i.e., become proselytes) through circumcision. But the view that “devout” and “God-fearing” may not have been strict technical terms is becoming more accepted now. Instead, the word “sympathizer” is used.5 After a lengthy discussion, Barrett sums up as follows:
What is important is (a) that some Gentiles were attracted to Jewish ethics, theology and worship, but did not become proselytes; (b) that in some places (one!) they formed a recognized and valued element in the synagogue community, though the degree of their religious attachment is not specified and remains unknown; (c) that such Gentiles presented a great opportunity to Christian evangelists; (d) that Luke was aware of this.6
Luke gives two features about the piety of Cornelius: his generosity to the needy and his regular prayer (v. 2). These represent the God-ward and person-ward sides of religion as taught in the Scriptures (Mic. 6:8; James 1:27; 1 Peter 4:7–11). Cornelius had a vision “at about7 three in the afternoon” (lit., “the ninth hour,” v. 3). This was one of the three traditional Jewish times of prayer, and Cornelius later tells Peter that he was praying at the time (v. 30).
Here we have another occurrence in Acts of direction through a vision8 and through the action of an angel.9 Luke uses a strong word (emphobos) to describe Cornelius’s reaction of fear (v. 4). Often in biblical instances of human contact with the spirit world, godly people responded with fear and God gave them words of reassurance. Bruce points out that the angel’s words, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God” (v. 4), are full of sacrificial terminology. “Cornelius’ acts of piety and charity had ascended into the divine presence like incense or the smoke of a sacrifice.”10
The angel tells Cornelius to summon Peter from Joppa (vv. 5–6).11 His message says nothing about what will happen as a result of his coming. The mention of Peter’s staying in the house of Simon the tanner may have come as a surprise to Cornelius, as this was not a highly esteemed trade.12 Despite the lack of details, Cornelius obeys immediately (vv. 7–8). As head of his delegation he sends a soldier who was both in sympathy with the mission (“devout”) and close to him (“[one] of those who were in constant attendance upon him,” NASB).
Scene Two: Peter’s Vision (10:9–16)
PETER, THE ONE to whom the keys of the kingdom were given (Matt. 16:19), is again chosen to open another important door for the gospel—as he did with the Jews on the day of Pentecost and with the Samaritans a short while later. We find him in Joppa, where he will disregard his prejudices, obey God by traveling to Caesarea, and open the door for Gentiles to respond to the gospel—the very thing that Jonah resisted in the same city (Jonah 1:3). He goes to the roof of the house he is staying at around noon to pray (v. 9, not one of the prescribed Jewish times for prayer). The flat roofs of Palestine, approached by an outdoor flight of steps, were common places of prayer in biblical times.13 It was a good place to pray during the daytime as it was separate from the activity of the house, and the sea breeze and an awning helped cool the place.
Peter receives a vision, given at a time when he was hungry, in which he sees a sheet that “contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air” (v. 12). The entire animal world is symbolized, and clean and unclean animals are included. Peter receives a command to “kill and eat” (v. 13), which would be unacceptable for him as a Jew, as some of the animals were not kosher (suitable for Jews to eat).14 His answer, “Surely not, Lord! . . . I have never eaten anything impure or unclean” (v. 14), contains a contradiction: He makes a categorical refusal to obey one whom he calls “Lord” (kyrios). The use of “Lord” suggests that he had recognized the voice as being divine.15
Some have said that this statement may mean that Peter assumed God was testing him to see whether he would be faithful to the law. Barrett thinks “that Luke (or Peter, if the narrative does in fact go back to him) failed to see the logical implication of what was said.”16 We feel it is probable that this was an outburst characteristic of Peter. He was revolted by the command and refused to obey, even though God may have been the one giving it to him. We must remember that for the Jews “the dietary laws are not a matter of etiquette or peculiar culinary habits. They are a matter of survival and identity.”17
The answer Peter receives clearly brings God into the picture: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (v. 15). The adjective and verb translated “impure” (koinos, koinoo, lit., “common”) appear five times in chapters 10–11. In verse 15 it appears as a present imperative with the negative (me koinou), which makes it a prohibition. J. H. Moulton translates it, “You must stop considering it as common.”18 Later, Peter’s disciple Mark, after reporting on the discourse of Jesus on clean and unclean objects (Mark 7:5–23), would make an editorial comment stating, “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19b). Perhaps this vision helped Peter understand the implications of that discourse of Jesus. The impact of the vision on Peter is heightened by its repetition two more times (v. 16).
Peter will soon realize that he may not consider any group of people common or unclean either (v. 28). Scholars disagree on whether food laws were indeed abrogated by this vision. Some think, however, that the vision dealt primarily with food laws rather than with interaction with Gentiles.19 Polhill points out that “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.” Bruce writes, “The animals in the vision are parabolic of human beings: Peter is being prepared to accept Cornelius’ invitation to visit him.”20
Scene Three: Peter Meets the Messengers (10:17–23a)
CORNELIUS’S MESSENGERS STOP at Simon’s gate (v. 17), and the Holy Spirit instructs Peter to go with the men (vv. 19–20). While we are told that the Spirit spoke to Peter, we must note that Peter was in a fit state to receive a communication from God. Luke says he was “wondering about the meaning of the vision” (v. 17) and “thinking about the vision” (v. 19). The word translated “thinking” (dienthymeomai), which appears only here in the Bible, means “to think about something thoroughly and/or seriously.” Louw and Nida say it is used to indicate intensity of thought.21 While God led Peter clearly, he was earnestly seeking to find God’s will.
Peter’s bold step of inviting “the men into the house to be his guests” (v. 23a) introduces an important emphasis in this passage, that of hospitality.22 “It was easier for a Jew to have Gentiles stay with him than for a Jew to stay with Gentiles. Nevertheless, this kindly act was a great step forward for Peter.”23
Scene Four: Peter and Cornelius Meet (10:23b–33)
IN KEEPING WITH the regular practice in the early church, Peter takes some brothers rather than go on this assignment alone (v. 23). Cornelius seems to have been certain about the time Peter would come (four days after he saw the vision, v. 30), for Peter finds “a large gathering of people” at the house (v. 27). Cornelius shows great humility for a centurion for, like the centurion whom Jesus encountered (Luke 7:6), he “fell at [Peter’s] feet in reverence” (v. 25). But Peter will have none of this, as such reverence is reserved only for God (v. 26). Such acts of reverence to respected people were not unusual in the Near East in those days. In fact, it was “typical of the welcome a hero receives in the Greek novel.”24 But Peter will not risk anything that might suggest that he is accepting the type of respect that is due to God alone.
Peter’s discovery, as he explains to his audience, is the pivotal message of this whole passage: “God has shown me that I should not call any man impure [koinos] or unclean” (v. 28). Earlier we noted that koinos means “common.” Here it has the idea of “being ritually unacceptable either as a result of defilement or because of the very nature of the object itself.”25 A big shift has taken place in Peter’s thinking, for he now realizes that no longer are the typical Jewish distinctions among people significant. They have been rendered void once and for all. In this episode Jew and Gentile have come together (cf. v. 28, as well as the repeated use of the prefix syn [“together with”] in compound words in this scene).26
Rarely does an evangelist find as receptive an audience as Peter found here (v. 33). The stage is set to move to the next scene: the proclamation of the gospel.
Bridging Contexts
NO “COMMON” PERSONS. The major theme of this section is the breaking of old distinctions that divided people. The hope that Gentiles will also share in the blessings of God is a clear theme in the Old Testament. It gains prominence first in the call of Abraham (Gen. 12:3) and is a thread that runs throughout the Old Testament,27 reaching its zenith in the Servant Songs of Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–17; 49:8–12). Peter O’Brien has shown that Paul viewed his call in terms of the fulfilling of these Old Testament promises of blessings to the Gentiles.28 Acts has already recorded the beginnings of the fulfillment of these promises through the conversions of the Samaritans, the Ethiopian, and of Paul (who would be the apostle to the Gentiles).
Before the church was to fulfill this role, she had to shed some of the exclusivism connected with Judaism. Stephen had showed that the temple was unnecessary. Now God shows the church that the Jewish idea that anyone not conforming to their national standards of purity could not be saved is no longer valid. These purity laws may have been needed at one stage of the history of God’s people. But it was now no longer necessary for Gentiles to conform to these regulations.
Peter describes his discovery with two great statements: “God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean” (v. 28); and “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism” (v. 34). The next great step would be the Jerusalem Council, when the church would officially accept the principles that Peter learned through this episode (ch. 15). The belief that emerged is summarized in Paul’s declaration, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28; cf. Col. 3:11). Paul was to explain later that the breaking of barriers among humans is a direct result of the death of Christ (Eph. 2:13–16; cf. 2 Cor. 5:14–17; also John 10:15–16).29
Is this relevant to us today? After all, most Christians today are Gentiles, so that the specific issue facing the church in Acts does not apply to us. While the specific issue may not apply to us, the general principle certainly does. “God does not show favoritism” (v. 34); that is, in the kingdom of God we may not categorize people according to their background. This principle is urgently in need of reiteration in every age, including ours (see below).
An attitude of repentance. When Peter realized that he had been wrong about his earlier prejudices, he readily admitted that in his conversation with Cornelius (v. 28). When he preached to the crowd, he again publicly confessed the lesson he had learned: God shows no favoritism (v. 34). This attitude of willingness to accept and repent of past prejudices goes a long way in healing relationships ruptured through prejudice; it also opens a ministry for the repentant leader with those he once viewed in a wrong way.
How God makes his will known. Through the Cornelius episode God led the church to take a great step forward in understanding his ways. Could we not learn something from this episode about how God leads individuals and the church into new exciting paths of obedience? Certainly we cannot find principles here that work in every situation of guidance. But as we observe God at work here, we may learn principles that are important to us today.30
Yet the means used here have caused some to discount the practical importance of this passage. Haenchen says of this passage, “The presence of God may be directly ascertained. But here faith loses its true character of decision, and the obedience from faith which Luke would have liked to portray turns into something utterly different: very nearly the twitching of human puppets.”31 Yet, as Tannehill points out, “the narrative presents a more sophisticated and complex account of humans discerning the will of God than Haenchen thought.”32 The visions and special divine messages “are best called divine promptings because they are incomplete in themselves. They require human action or reflection.”33
Grappling with what we are uncomfortable. In verses 17 and 19 Peter was grappling intensely regarding the meaning of the vision when the Holy Spirit spoke to him. At first Peter vehemently refused to be open to change, as is expressed by his cry, “Surely not, Lord!” (v. 14). He had strong convictions. But when he sensed that God was indeed teaching him something new, he seriously considered the implications of the vision. Thus, both divine guidance and Peter’s willingness to grasp what God was showing him combined to produce a change in his thinking, even though it was something he was uncomfortable with. A passion for obedience makes God’s servants open to changes with which they may at first be uncomfortable.
God found in Peter a person who was open to living with the uncomfortable. That helped him to be open to God’s surprises. This openness is seen earlier in that he stayed in the home of a tanner (see comments on 9:43). Peter had already left his “comfort zone” because of his commitment to ministry, and this made him open to more of God’s revelations.
God speaks when we are at prayer. The revolutionary message to Peter came while he was engaged in private prayer (v. 9). God spoke to Cornelius also when he was in prayer (v. 30). This conforms to a pattern found in both of Luke’s volumes: God used prayer time as an occasion to lead people to new avenues of ministry.34 This is perhaps to be expected. God, who wishes two-way communication with his children, will find our times of prayer, when we are attuned to him, as suitable occasions to break through to us.
Evangelistic hospitality. We have already seen two features of hospitality in Acts.35 Here we see a third feature: having non-Christians over in our homes (as Peter had the Romans stay over at Simon’s home, v. 23), and being in the homes of non-Christians (as Peter did in the home of Cornelius, vv. 25 and 48).36 Paul also did this in Rome, where for two years he stayed in his own rented house, welcoming all who came to see him, preaching the gospel, and teaching about Jesus (28:30–31). Also, when Paul was shipwrecked on Malta, he stayed in the home of “Publius, the chief official of the island” (28:7). We may call this evangelistic hospitality.
Contemporary Significance
GIVING UP OUR prejudices. That Peter needed a drastic message from God to get rid of his prejudices about distinctions among people suggests that even mature Christian leaders may occasionally need a major paradigm shift in order to come into line with God’s thinking. Peter’s initial response to the command in the vision (10:14) is typical: “Surely not, Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” As J. A. Alexander points out: “Even [divine] authority was not sufficient to break the force of prejudice and habit.” The thought behind Peter’s statement is, “I cannot do it now because I never did it before.”37 But to such thinking comes God’s message: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (v. 15).
The particular person whom God asked Peter to meet was a top official of the army of occupation in the hated capital of Palestine. Often even Christians find such people difficult to accept. Living in a land of ethnic strife and struggling with the question of feelings for one’s race and the other’s race in a time of conflict, I have come to realize that prejudice is often one of the last things that is touched by the process of sanctification. For example, it is not uncommon to find supposedly devout Christians becoming unreasonably adamant in their opposition to a child of theirs marrying a Christian from a race under which they have suffered so much.
Recently when expounding the book of Galatians, I looked for an example that would illustrate how powerfully Christ breaks barriers (Gal. 3:28) and how Christians sometimes do not accept that. This is what I came up with. There is an eminent Christian couple in leadership in the church—he a university professor and she a specialist physician. They have a son who is a wonderful Christian. He falls in love and wants to marry a young woman who is also a wonderful Christian. But her mother is a prostitute and drug addict, and she does not know who her father is. How will the parents of this young man react? Will they oppose it because of her background? Naturally, they will want to warn their son about conflicts that may arise because of differences in background. But because Christ has broken all barriers, background should not be a reason to object to a marriage.
Often Christians have not wanted to break the barriers of caste, class, and race because it is inconvenient to do so. Sometimes believers do not bring up these issues, fearing that doing so will affect the evangelistic effectiveness of the church. At other times it seems advantageous to treat those different from them as inferior. Some Christians thought that it would spell national economic ruin to accept as equals slaves in the British Empire and then in North America. Even today, some think it will bring shame to them if their children marry outside race, class, or caste. Once some Christian parents in Sri Lanka were upset when YFC took their children to minister in what they considered outcast villages. The evangelical church in particular has such a bad record in the areas of prejudice and condoning race, caste, and class distinctions. Muslims are now exploiting this by proclaiming the brotherhood of Islam as an alternative to the prejudice of Christians. And Islam is growing with converts from Christianity among peoples who were once treated inferior by other Christians.
It is beyond the scope of this book to detail how we can remedy this problem in the church. I will only list a few essential things we must do if we are to rid the church of this terrible malady of prejudice.
• We must help people understand the nature of Christian identity, which does not depend on human distinctions. When people realize that they are accepted as significant and useful to the kingdom not because of any merit of their own but only because of the mercy of God, they also realize that they cannot look down on anyone. In what is most important to them, they are undeserving recipients of glorious gifts. Prejudice, then, is an expression of insecurity and feelings of inferiority. If we do not feel secure and accepted in Christ, we need earthly things to make us feel important. One of those earthly things is the idea that we are superior to others. To one who has truly understood grace, such a position is an impossibility.
• We must teach and preach the biblical truths that combat prejudice regularly in our churches. Many so-called Bible-believing churches do not do this. This allows Christians to imbibe sinful attitudes from their environment without being told such attitudes are wrong.
• We must listen to the heart of those on the other side of an issue that divides people. Because this can be a painful exercise, Christians often keep to themselves feelings that deeply affect them. When YFC in Sri Lanka began to work with the poor, we found that the first converts sometimes reacted angrily to the injustice that existed in society and in the church. Once they became Christians and realized their equality in Christ, their anger expressed itself even more forcefully than before, for now they saw the utter sinfulness of many who treated them as inferior. Listening to that anger was helpful to us in understanding a malady that has existed so fiercely in the society and the church in our land.
• We must confront prejudice when it appears in church and society and condemn it with holy zeal, as Paul did when Peter gave in to prejudice in Antioch (Gal. 2:11–13). This can be difficult, for vested interests are often touched in such situations. It also can earn us the reputation of being traitors to our own people.
• We must stand up for and pay the price of helping people of the “other” group. This too can be costly in terms of reputation and convenience. But it helps heal wounds within people who have been hurt. A Christian friend of the opposite race to mine in the conflict in Sri Lanka once told me that because Christians of my race had paid a great price to help him when he was hurt through the ethnic crisis, it is impossible for him to condone the destructive attitudes of violence and animosity that so many of his race have.
• The next key—an attitude of repentance—appears in our passage, so we will examine it with greater depth.
An attitude of repentance. An attitude of repentance on the part of leaders will help heal relationships broken through prejudice and open a door for ministry for the repentant leader. David Gooding observes, “So very often it is the man who admits that he himself had to be corrected and to change his views who makes the most readily acceptable teacher of others.”38 The process of going through the turmoil of repenting of past attitudes helps create a sensitivity that is a key to identifying with others. I have found that upper-class people who have been most effective in ministry among the poor are those who have repented of their attitudes of class superiority. By contrast, those who say they are not prejudiced are often the most prejudiced and bigoted. We will struggle with prejudice all our lives. But if we let God’s Spirit rebuke us of our wrong attitudes, we will have effective ministries among those who are different from us.
One of the things that public confession of prejudice or error does is to reduce destructive anger in people who have been discriminated against. They respond to this confession with a sense that at least this person knows how they feel. In the ethnic crisis in our land one of the most frequently leveled accusations from both sides has been: “You just don’t understand what we go through.” We had a terrible riot in 1983, where many people of the Tamil race were badly harmed by Sinhalese rioters. The Sinhalese Anglican Bishop Lakshman Wickremasinghe was in England for a heart operation at the time. In his first sermon after his return to Sri Lanka, he used the words, “We have killed. . . .” Even though he was not in the country at the time of the riot, he took responsibility for the members of his race. Needless to say, this bishop had a credibility with the Tamils that made him into an powerful instrument of peace.
We know it is not easy for leaders to retract publicly certain positions that they have advocated. Yet they must constantly be open to this personal humiliation that may be needed in order that the gospel can move forward. Our commitment to truth will help us persevere in making such drastic changes in our positions. Toward the end of his life the great theologian Augustine wrote a book entitled Retractions, in which he retracted things he had written earlier about which he had changed his mind.39
In a conflict situation often we can cause hurt without ever intending to do so. A wrong word slips out of our mouth to which a connotation is assigned that we never intended. While we never intended to hurt, the fact is that our words did hurt. And if we have hurt someone, we can apologize unreservedly without sticking to our position that we have been misinterpreted. Those who do this and refuse to apologize increase division without being agents of healing.
When Christians understand their status in Christ, it is not difficult for them to apologize. Their identity does not depend on their performance but on the acceptance they receive from Christ. Sin can hinder that acceptance. Therefore if they think that they have sinned, they will be eager to apologize, so as to ensure that they have their identity and security in Christ intact.
Grappling with things we are uncomfortable with. Unlike Peter, our stubborn hearts can close our minds and refuse to listen to God’s promptings toward change. Making these changes is often difficult. On one occasion a radical change of philosophy was thrust upon us out of necessity in a certain area where the YFC ministry that I was leading was involved. I strongly opposed those changes, but we could find no other way out of our dilemma. I became ill as I grappled in my mind about this. I wrote my letter of resignation several times but never turned it in. But as I prayed about the issue, I was forced to accept that the thing I was resisting was a move of God. I had to release my will to God, at first rather reluctantly. As I look back now, I see those new moves as exciting ventures to which God has guided us.
Peter’s openness to change was fueled by his being willing to do things he was uncomfortable with, such as living in the home of a tanner. There is a lot of talk about being on the cutting edge today. But for Christians cutting-edge ministry comes as a result of cutting-edge identification. Some great Christian advances are made not in the strategy meetings of our air-conditioned boardrooms but in the difficult and uncomfortable situations to which love for people takes us.
The place of prayer. Prayer gets us in tune with God and therefore receptive to his leading. At such times, God can speak to us. He may speak through a strong impression that comes into the mind while we are at prayer. He may speak through a message given in a prophecy-type utterance.40 He may guide a leader of a group after a prayer time to say something that opens the door to something unusual. For example, Samuel Mills (1783–1818) led his four fellow students at Williams College, Massachusetts, during the now famous haystack prayer meeting and propelled North American Protestants into foreign missions.41 In other words, prayer is a key to Christian planning methodology.
We should be warned that when we are seeking to discern God’s will on an issue, we must never substitute dependence on direct communications from God for serious study of Scripture and of existing situations. Often God does not communicate his will to us directly because he wants us to grapple with the situation and with what the Scriptures say about it. This grappling can be an enriching experience that contributes to our growth to maturity. It helps give us a Christian worldview and develops what Harry Blamires calls “a Christian mind.”42 On such occasions there is a greater likelihood that the lessons learned will go deep into our minds, as they did here in Peter’s mind.
It is significant that Peter went to pray at noon (v. 9). Though there are instances of devout people praying at this time (Ps. 55:17), it was not one of the prescribed times of prayer for the Jews. Peter was obviously a person of prayer, who looked for suitable times and places (like the rooftop) to pray. In our day when research and expert advice seem to be the keys to strategic planning, we must not forget that more primary is the key of leaders who know what it is to be silent before God. I have traveled with leaders who are so out of touch with the discipline of lingering in the presence of God that, even when they have the time in their travels, they find it difficult to stop and pray. Their workaholism has made them lose their thirst for prayer. Such people must not be permitted to be leaders of God’s people.
The blessings of evangelistic hospitality. When non-Christians see Christians at close quarters through either the giving or the receiving of hospitality, they can observe things about Christians that they would not be able to see in any other way, and their false concepts will be corrected. Such hospitality also opens doors for informal opportunities of verbal witness. Along the way they may become attracted to the gospel. Thus, this type of hospitality is a valid way of evangelistic witness.
Some years ago we had staying in our home a Buddhist mother and her young daughter from a village where we had been ministering. The evangelists, realizing that the girl had what seemed like a serious heart condition, recommended that they take her to the capital city, Colombo, for treatment. The two of them stayed in our home for about two weeks, during which time tests were done and a decision was made to operate on her. A few nights before the young girl left for the hospital, she had a dream in which Jesus met her and told her not to worry because he would look after her. That morning she told her mother that she would like to become a Christian. The operation was successful, and a few months later I was at the service where both the mother and daughter were baptized.
On another occasion we had a young Hindu convert stay in our home with his mother after their home was burned down in riots between our race and theirs. She stayed with us for six months, but before she left she too was baptized as a Christian. Of course, not all such contacts become Christians. We have many Hindu neighbors for whose salvation we have yearned many years. One night during the same riots just mentioned, my wife kept about thirty of these Hindu women and children in our home while gangs from my race were attacking their race (I was ministering in Pakistan at that time). They were grateful for our expression of solidarity with them. But despite our efforts at witness, none of them has become Christian. Yet that will not influence our decision to have them again and again if the need arises.43
Of course there is inconvenience when people of different cultures come and stay in our homes. For this reason it is important that the decision to have them over becomes a family decision rather than one that is thrust upon the family by the father or mother. But I believe that the enrichment it brings outweighs the inconvenience.
Doors can also be opened for evangelistic witness when we live in homes of non-Christians, especially if these people are so despised by others that we would not be expected to stay with them. This was the case with Peter’s staying in the home of Cornelius. The Maltose people are a mountain tribe in India that has had such a high mortality rate that they were expected to become extinct by 2025. They almost never bathe since they have no access to water. Consequently, the rest of society rejects them. People will not go near them because of the smell they emit. Missionaries from the Friends Missionary Prayer Band began a work among this tribe. They not only visited their villages, they even lived in their homes beside them.
By 1996, about 34,000 of the 85,000 people in this tribe had become Christians, and with the consequent change in lifestyle, there has been a significant drop in the mortality rate. The missionaries have paid a great price to reap this harvest. Four of them have died of the diseases that have been killing the Maltose: malaria, tuberculosis, and kalaarzar. One of them was the young son of Patrick Joshua, the leader of this mission. He had received his master’s degree in social work and went to live among these people to help with their social reconstruction. After his death three other young people went in his place—a costly but precious harvest indeed, which included identification through the receiving of hospitality.
Evangelistic hospitality can also take place by inviting friends to our homes for meals or meetings. In recent years this method of evangelism has been effectively used by many churches through what they call cell groups or house churches.44