The first half of this chapter is a review and commentary on Acts 10,
So we will probably not have quite so many messages on chapter 11.
But the Lord does have me thinking about three or four ideas from the scripture which we just read.
The message for this evening can hardly be called a sermon.
And it won’t be very long.
I’d just like to point out some of the lessons that lie hidden just beneath the surface of this passage.
They come in no particular order, and we’ll just call them “points of order.”
I believe that Christ started a church which settled in Jerusalem, and that church started other churches.
Those churches had authority to exist and to bear the name of the Lord Jesus,
And because they came from the church that Jesus’ pastored.
Unfortunately there are a lot of churches in every corner of the world today which claim to be churches of Christ, but they are not, because they don’t believe or practice the things which Christ taught.
Most of them were started by fellow sinners, like ourselves, and not by the Saviour.
Because of these things they have no divine authority.
I have no confidence that there are any true Churches of Christ in the city of Post Falls besides ours.
This may sound bigoted and egotistical, but I believe it to be based on fact and truth.
And I also acknowledge that this might not always be the case.
I believe that our church has the blessing of antiquity – the original antiquity.
But let’s notice that antiquity doesn’t mean perfection.
The church in Jerusalem was a church – THE church – of antiquity, and yet it was flawed.
We must not assume that our historical roots and lineage to Christ mean that we are above reproach.
If the first church was less than perfect, what does that mean about ours?
It was a church whose entire membership was Jewish, with a smattering proselytes to Judaism.
And despite possessing the Old Testament scriptures and watching the Lord Jesus save and bless people from other nations and races, that church seemed determined to remain Jewish.
When Peter was forced by God to minister to some Gentiles, and then to order their baptism, it offended the senses and doctrines of the church in Jerusalem.
And in essence Peter was “called on the carpet” when he got back to the city.
Was it the Lord’s will that Gentiles be saved and to become a part of the Lord’s churches?
There may have been some members of the church – people like Barnabas –
Who might have believed that, but it wasn’t a widely accepted doctrine, even though it was orthodox doctrine.
I am glad that I am not the one who has to snuff out the candle of one of the Lord’s churches.
I am glad that it’s not based on my opinions as to when a church gets far enough from the truth to cease to be one of the Lord’s churches.
I’m sure that there is a line in the sand, or a number of errors that when reached the Lord finally says, “Ichabod,” but He hasn’t told me exactly where that line is.
But the point is this, a church can be a church and still hold to SOME false doctrine.
Be careful about consigning to Hell every church which disagrees with you
And conversely, to be a member of one of the Lord’s churches doesn’t automatically make a person orthodox.
The Bible doesn’t teach or condone racial or national bigotry.
The scripture does condemn worshipping with, intermarrying with and imitating the heathen,
But I can’t recall the forbidding of entering their homes or to eat with them.
In fact I think that there is a parallel between the Lord Jesus eating with both Pharisees and Publicans, and if He had the opportunity to eat supper with Cornelius.
Sinners are sinners whether they worship rocks and stumps or gold and silver.
And the ancient traditions that the Jews had against these people didn’t make them Biblical.
Make sure that what you believe and what you do, can be corroborated with scripture.
Tradition and historical practice isn’t good enough.
But to be an apostle didn’t mean infallibility, moral or doctrinal perfection.
Right or wrong, the church knew that there was the possibility that Peter really messed up in Caesarea.
They had no mixed up idea that Peter was anything more than a man like themselves.
And Peter didn’t have that idea either.
How did Peter get from being one of the elders in Jerusalem to being the Pope at Rome?
What sort of spiritual evolution made this mere Apostle into the Pontifex Maximus?
He wasn’t the dictator or the vicar of Christ in Jerusalem, so how did he ever become such in Rome?
The answer is: only in people’s imaginations.
But the church in Jerusalem heard about what was happening in Caesarea.
Without spying on Peter, they were watching him.
And the same can be said about any one of us, or of our church as an organization.
I got an e-mail today from a man whom I have never met, saying that he had heard about us, and asking a couple of additional questions.
Just as he was talking about us, others might be talking about you personally.
There is nothing that we can do about what they think, but there is something that we can do about what they see.
Make sure that they see Christians serving the Lord and victorious over sin.
“And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.”
As you read those words, what do you think was the tone of voice that used against Peter?
And what does the word “contend” mean?
I think that at the very least, whoever confronted Peter was accusatory.
I think that it was “What do you think you were doing in fellowship with those ungodly, uncircumcised gentiles?”
I have to commend Peter in his response.
The cool, calm and humble way that he answered was uncharacteristic of the old Peter.
In the past he might have pulled out his sword or grabbed the man’s collar.
But what he did in this case was to simply rehearse the events exactly as they had developed.
Humility and civility are always appropriate, and even though they don’t always win the day, they are always fitting.
If God wanted to overturn specific measures in the Bible, then He is God and can do that.
And certainly when the Lord wants to tell us that our traditions and opinions are stupid, then we had better listen.
Peter was never more right in his life when he said, “What was I, that I could withstand God?
And who are we to try it?
Not even the apostles were freelance religious hucksters.
They were ambassadors and servants of the Lord’s church in Jerusalem.
And even though that church was initially wrong in its understanding of this situation and doctrine, Peter was still responsible to them.
Let’s say that some relative, whom you love dearly, gave you a book which espoused some heretical doctrine.
Let’s say that with that well-written book and the influence of that relative, you were beginning to agree and wonder why Brother Oldfield doesn’t teach it.
Could it be that the church hasn’t ever heard this idea before?
If you thought that this new doctrine was not something that this church teaches, then you should permit the church to examine it and approve it before you accept it.
I’m not saying that I should be considered the king or governor of your mind or heart.
I am not your high priest or your pope.
And the fact is that this is not about me at all.
But according to scripture this church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
And our church should be at the forefront of this examination.
And in that case, then the pastor and the church need to be allowed to study it and judge it just as you have.
And if the church cannot agree with that new book, then you shouldn’t either.
Verse 18 – “When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”
Here are eight little lessons which I gleaned from this scripture.
I wonder how many more we might find, if we read it enough times and dug deeply enough.