Day 1 Reflections from an Amish Devotional

One of the questions I love most when studying Scripture is also one of the simplest:

“Where does it actually say that?”

Sometimes the answer is obvious. Other times, the answer is…surprisingly difficult to find.

That happened to me while reading Acts 10, the account of Peter’s visit to Cornelius.

Most of us know the story. Peter receives a vision from God in which a sheet filled with animals, both clean and unclean, is lowered from heaven. Three times he is told, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

Peter objects.

“I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”

God replies,

“What God has made clean, do not call common.”

Shortly afterward, Peter is invited to the home of Cornelius, a Roman centurion and a Gentile. When Peter arrives, he says something that stopped me in my tracks.

“You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation…” (Acts 10:28)

That raised an immediate question in my mind.

Where is that law?

Searching the Torah

I went looking. I searched through the Law of Moses.

I found commands against idolatry. Commands against adopting the religious practices of the surrounding nations. Commands about ceremonial cleanliness. Commands about marriage with certain pagan nations.

But I couldn’t find a command that prohibited a Jew from entering the home of a Gentile or simply associating with someone from another nation.

That doesn’t mean Peter was inventing something.

It does suggest he may have been referring to something other than the written Torah.

By the first century, Jewish life had become shaped not only by the Law given through Moses but also by centuries of rabbinic interpretation and oral tradition. Many customs were designed with good intentions. They created protective “fences” around the Law to help prevent people from accidentally breaking God’s commands.

The problem was that, over time, those fences sometimes became difficult to distinguish from the Law itself.

Simon the Tanner

Another detail in Acts makes Peter’s statement even more fascinating.

Before visiting Cornelius, Peter was staying in the home of Simon the tanner (Acts 9:43).

A tanner worked with animal hides every day. That meant constant contact with dead animals, something the Mosaic Law explicitly discusses in its regulations concerning ceremonial uncleanness.

Yet Peter stayed with him. Why?

Because Simon was a fellow Jew.

Cornelius, however, represented a boundary Peter had never crossed. Not because Cornelius was immoral. Not because he was an idolater. In fact, Acts describes Cornelius as a devout man who feared God, prayed continually, and gave generously to those in need.

The dividing line was simply that Cornelius was a Gentile.

It seems Peter was willing to overlook one source of ceremonial uncleanness while maintaining another boundary he believed God required.

Then God challenged that assumption.

The Boundary God Never Drew

One of the beautiful ironies of Acts 10 is that Peter eventually realizes something profound.

He says,

“God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.” (Acts 10:28)

Peter’s understanding had to change. Not because God had changed. But because Peter’s understanding of God’s purposes had been incomplete. The barrier Peter thought existed was never intended to keep the nations away from God’s grace.

God Himself removed it.

The gospel crossed a line that many religious people assumed heaven had drawn.

The Question That Won’t Leave Me Alone

As I finished reading, I couldn’t help asking another question.

How often do we do the same thing?

How many beliefs, practices, and denominational distinctives do we defend because Scripture clearly teaches them? And how many do we defend simply because they’ve been handed to us by the traditions we’ve inherited?

That’s not a question aimed at one denomination. It’s aimed at all of us. Every Christian tradition has assumptions. Every church has interpretive lenses. Every one of us is capable of confusing what Scripture says with what we’ve always heard Scripture says.

A Modern Example

Consider the ongoing discussion about women serving as pastors.

Some Christians believe the Bible clearly prohibits it. Others believe the relevant passages have been misunderstood, limited to particular historical situations, or interpreted too broadly.

This article isn’t about settling that debate. It’s about asking a prior question.

Have we examined the Scriptures carefully enough to know whether our position comes from the text itself or from an inherited interpretation of the text?

Those are not always the same thing. The issue isn’t whether tradition is bad. Tradition can preserve tremendous wisdom. The issue is whether we’re willing to let Scripture evaluate our traditions rather than allowing our traditions to determine what Scripture is permitted to say.

Peter’s Example

Peter deserves enormous credit. When God confronted one of his deeply held assumptions, Peter changed. That could not have been easy. His entire religious upbringing had reinforced the very boundary God was asking him to cross.

Yet Peter humbled himself. He followed God’s leading. The result?

The Holy Spirit fell upon Gentiles. The Church expanded beyond Israel. The gospel crossed cultural, ethnic, and religious barriers that many assumed were permanent.

Imagine if Peter had refused because “that’s how we’ve always understood it.”

History would look very different.

Holding Our Traditions with Open Hands

I don’t believe Acts 10 is simply about Jews and Gentiles. It’s about something much bigger. It’s about the humility required to continually allow God’s Word to challenge our assumptions.

Some traditions deserve to be held tightly because they faithfully reflect Scripture. Others deserve another look. The difficult part is discerning which is which.

That requires humility. Patience. Prayer. And the courage to ask uncomfortable questions.

Perhaps one of the healthiest questions a Christian can ask is this:

“Am I defending what Scripture ACTUALLY says…or what I’ve always been TOLD it says?”

Those are not always identical.

Acts 10 reminds us that even Peter had something new to learn. If the apostle Peter could allow God to challenge his inherited assumptions, perhaps we should be willing to do the same. Not because tradition has no value. But because God’s Word must always remain our highest authority.