Peter may have got there, but some of the leaders in Jerusalem hadn’t. Peter no doubt expected criticism about his time in Caesarea – and he got it (v 2). Old habits and old understandings die hard. But listening to what God had done, these leaders see that change is coming. It would be easy from our perspective to criticise them – and in his letters Paul has quite a bit to say about those who refused to change their way of thinking – but how often do we stick with our own attitudes even when God is calling us to change?

We could benefit from cultivating the attitude here. Keep an open mind. There is always the possibility that the way we have always seen things may be wrong or that God may be doing something new. Listen carefully. Rather than dismissing Peter, they listen to his account. When we disagree, listening to others is important. Look at what God is doing. If that goes against what we think, then we may have to change. Have a big heart. They didn’t like what was happening, but they saw it as God’s doing and praised him. Let’s be generous even when things don’t go the way we would like.

Teach us, Lord, how to deal with criticism, especially if it is unjust.

The final act in this drama can be entitled Trouble Back At Home! The news that ‘the Gentiles also had received the word of God’ (v 1) went ahead of Peter to Jerusalem and we might anticipate that it would trigger an outburst of praise and thanksgiving. In fact, just the opposite happens and he faces a storm of hostile criticism. This reaction by ‘the circumcised believers’ (v 2) anticipates the opposition which will resurface throughout Luke’s story and become even stronger in reaction to Paul’s mission among the Gentiles. Sadly, throughout the subsequent history of the Christian movement, pioneering evangelists who have broken new ground with the gospel have been misunderstood, criticised for their failure to maintain the traditions of the home church, held at a distance and even suspected of heresy.

What matters here is Peter’s reaction to this dispiriting reception. How easy it would have been for him to take serious offence, give back as good as he got to his critics and turn away from them as hopeless conservatives who deserved no more of his time. How many divisions have taken place in the church in precisely such circumstances? Peter, however, does not do this; instead, he explained everything to them precisely as it had happened. This is the action of a man who has learned the patience of Jesus, who regards the unity of the people of God across racial and cultural lines as crucial to its testimony and who understands the anxieties of his hearers because he had to overcome precisely such fears himself! The clinching statement in Peter’s defence is the assertion that it was God who poured out the Spirit on the Gentiles, so to oppose this development would be to resist the Lord and his purposes for humankind.

Can you think of situations similar to this one? How might this text be applied to them?