Thought on Peter's revelation to take the Gospel to the Gentiles

[MrShorty]

This thought came from part of our SS discussion on Sunday. The lesson was Acts 10 where Cornelius receives his angelic visitation to summon Peter, Peter receives the revelation of unclean beasts and, together, these events lead to the gospel being preached to the Gentiles.

 

Our SS class basically consisted of two "parts" -- one discussing this event from Acts, and another segment discussing (and, somewhat comparing) the revelation to extend the Priesthood to all worthy males in 1978.

 

One part of the discussion that stood out to me came while discussing Peter's revelation. When someone mentioned that this revelation was the "go ahead" for the apostles to preach to the Gentiles, someone pointed out that the apostles had been commanded, at the end of the gospels, to take the gospel to every nation. There was a brief discussion suggesting that Peter's revelation in Acts 10 would have been "unnecessary" if Peter and the other apostles had not been "entrenched in Jewish traditions" or otherwise "stubborn" about taking the gospel to the Gentiles. Seeing a parallel between this "criticism" of Peter in SS and the criticisms made by the Church's critics around the Priesthood ban, my first thought was "Are we more tolerant of a church member criticizing Peter than we are of a church member criticizing modern prophets?"

 

Further thinking led me to wonder if this criticism of Peter is wrong. Naturally, it is hypothetically possible that Peter, by virtue of his Priesthood position, somehow knew (though such a "revelation" is not recorded), that he needed to wait until he received revelation specifically authorizing the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles.

 

Or, perhaps, God allows the Church to follow "traditions of men" until He decides that such a practice cannot continue.

 

Ultimately, I can only say that the Church is led by God through a prophet. I think there are questions around apostolic fallibility and the patterns of revelation God uses to lead the church that I do not understand. These are the kind of questions that I would like to see discussed (and not so much about the Priesthood ban itself).

 

Any thoughts?

[Just_A_Guy]

1. In the last chapter of Luke (remember, Acts is just Volume 2 of Luke) Jesus tells the apostles to preach to all the world, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 1:8 also establishes a sequence for preaching: first Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, then the rest of the earth. Jesus gave them a sequence and the apostles stuck with it. They were not being stubborn or misunderstanding the Master's intent; they were simply waiting for "the long-promised day".

2. There was no Church-wide policy excluding the baptism of non-Jews prior to Acts 10, else there would have been no preaching in Samaria and no baptism of the eunuch by Phillip. The Church may not have made it a priority to seek converts from among those groups prior to Acts 10, but I see no evidence suggesting that those who came of their own accord were refused (except for the statements of Jesus Himself to the Canaanite woman, which--as Jesus' own actions showed--was not an absolute proscription).

Edited August 19, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[MrShorty]

JAG, thank you for reminding me of those aspects of the issue. The one who suggested that they had already received the commandment to preach to the world must have quoted from Mark or Matthew, where the part about starting in Jerusalem was omitted. So, that aspect of Peter's decision to wait for the revelation in Acts 10 before actively seeking out Gentile converts was not mentioned.

 

I think one aspect of my observation still stands, though. As simple as you have shown it would be to defend Peter's decision, no one in our SS class rose to his defence. Perhaps this was to avoid getting sidetracked down some tangent that really was not the focus of the lesson material. Nobody seemed at all uncomfortable with criticizing Peter in this way, certainly not in the same way that I expect the discussion would have gone if someone had remotely suggested that Presidents Young through Lee were "stubbornly following tradition rather than revelation" by not lifting the Priesthood ban.

[The Folk Prophet]

Some thoughts on the matter: I think people tend to view Peter's early leadership in the church differently than they may view a modern-day prophet's. Comparing a mistake Peter made as an early church leader to, for example, a mistake Joseph may have made early in the church that required revelatory correction may be more accurate. I'm not sure anyone views an understanding that Joseph had to learn line-upon-line as criticism of Joseph though.

 

As comparison against a prophet who has been, A) raised in the gospel, B) worked his way up through the years in a variety of different church leadership positions, C) is also being/has been supported by other prophet's and apostles revelation/wisdom and D) goes about stubbornly doing his own will anyhow, is where they may be a problem. In other words, to see that Peter had something to learn in the very early days of the Christian church is very different than seeing, as per the example given, that the first how-many of our prophets were/are simply entrenched in tradition.

 

It don't see it as a problem to compare apples to apples. Prophet's can be entrenched in tradition. But when they are, the Lord corrects them. When we compare said correction given to Peter (assuming it was a correction), to issues that prophets have supposedly perpetuated simply following tradition against the Lord's will, then it gets into something else altogether. If God willed the priesthood to go to all races sooner, it would have done so sooner. If God willed to "correct" Brigham Young on the matter, He would have. And if women were meant to have the priesthood, they would have it -- according to God's will and not according to the traditions of men.

 

I don't know if I've gone anywhere you wanted to with the discussion. But there are some of the excretions of my brainwaves for your perusal.