PETER’S MISSIOLOGY 163

“GOD HAS NO FAVORITES!”

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF APOSTLE PETER’S
MISSIOLOGICAL PARADIGM

Tereso C. Casiño*

Not much is written on the Apostle Peter’s pioneering contribution

to the shaping of the theology of mission. Interestingly enough, it was
Peter, not Paul, who pioneered cross-cultural missions.1 Unfortunately
the significance of his role in pioneering missionary work remains
silent, if not extant. Early in his ministry, the Lord Jesus Christ made
one of the most powerful pronouncements in biblical history: “And I
tell that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the
gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the
kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in
heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”
(Matt. 16:18-19, NIV).2
Little did Peter know that one day, this pronouncement would be
fulfilled in a household of a Gentile centurion named Cornelius. F. F.

*
Rev. Dr. Tereso C. Casiño, Th.D., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Systematic
Theology & Missiology and Director of the Continuing Education Center at Torch
Trinity Graduate School of Theology, Seoul, Korea. He joined Torch Trinity after
many years of teaching systematic-historical theology, biblical exposition, and
missiology in Asia. Dr. Casiño was Dean & Professor of Theology & Missiology at
Asia Baptist Graduate Theological Seminary (ABGTS) and founding Director of the
Asia Pacific Institute of Mission (APIM) of the Philippine Baptist Theological
Seminary (PBTS). His research interests include theological contextualization, cultural
anthropology, worldviews, theological systems and methods, diaspora missions, and
establishing missions networks in Asia and Europe. He currently serves as missionary-
pastor at the International Baptist Church in Seoul (IBCS), a ministry of Seoul
Memorial Baptist Church in Chungmu-Ro, Seoul.
1
Michael Goulder asserts that there was never a single or unitary church but
instead “two competing missions,” that of Peter and James in Jerusalem and Paul in
Antioch. Paul’s singular prominence can be “historically misleading. “ See, St. Paul
versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1995). Paul, of course, tops the production and dissemination of contemporary
mission theology. See, Dean Gilliland, Pauline Theology and Mission Practice (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983).
2
George E. Ladd understands Peter’s function as an “administrative authority” like
setting aside “Jewish ritual practices that there might be free fellowship with the
Gentiles” (Theology of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1974], 117).
164 TORCH TRINITY JOURNAL 6 (2003)

Bruce observes that at Pentecost Peter uses the “keys of the kingdom to
admit Jewish believers to the new fellowship,” and at Cornelius’ house,
he uses them to “open a door of faith to Gentiles.”3 Peter’s role as a
representative of the Twelve Apostles is distinct and historically
significant because he was the first to preach the good news to a group
of Gentiles (Acts 15:7) as well as to acknowledge their incorporation
within the church, which is referred to three times in Acts 10:1-48;
11:5-17; 15:7-11. The missiological currency of this redundancy of
testimony and claims is highly significant. 4 Acts 10-11 provides the
details of the fulfillment of Christ’s pronouncement relative to Peter’s
crucial role in missions, which unfolds in the drama of a “culinary
vision.”5
This essay seeks to identify and expound the critical components of
Peter’s missiological paradigm in Acts 10-11 as a foundational
contribution to contemporary missionary work. Each component will
be identified according to its major domains and corresponding
emphases. For the purpose of this study, the following critical
components will be noted: (1) theological, (2) philosophical, (3)
anthropological, (4) cultural, (5) structural, (6) soteriological, (7)
christological, (8) psychological, (9) incarnational, and (10) practical. 6

3
F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 3d rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 264.
4
See Andrew Clark, ‘The Role of the Apostles” in Witness to the Gospel: The
Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 172.
5
See William J. Larkin Jr., Acts, IVPNT Commentary Series, ed. Grant R. Osborne
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995), 156.
6
The genesis of this article traces back to Dr. Casiño’s lectures on missions and
cultural anthropology to participants of Asia-Pacific Summer Institute of Linguistics
(SIL). Insights were also presented in an essay, “Critical Challenges in Contemporary
Missiology: Peter’s Framework,” which was delivered at the First Missiology Seminar
on June 8, 2003, with the support of the United Graduate School of Theology of Hoseo
Univesity, Chonan, Korea.
 PETER’S MISSIOLOGY 165

THEOLOGICAL COMPONENT
Texts Domain Emphasis
Checking Extreme Nationalism:
10:4-8;34-35; God is not Domestic!
45-48; Inclusive God Correcting Theological
11:15-17 Entrenchment: God is a
Boundary-Crosser!

Basically, mission refers to the total plan, process, and work of God
for the salvation of people through all ages. All implementation and
forms of this plan done by the covenant people of God and through the
universal church are called missions.7 Peter discovers that this plan of
salvation for humanity, and its corresponding implementation and
forms through and by the church, are primarily theological in nature.
Thus, the theological component in contemporary missiology relates
primarily to the biblical view that God, as the chief missionary, is not
exclusive but rather inclusive.8 God is universal, although the

7
Andreas J. Kostenberger in his article, “The Place of Mission in New Testament
Theology: An Attempt to Determine the Significance of Mission within the Scope of
the New Testament’s Message as a Whole,” writes, “In contemporary usage, missions
generally refers to cross-cultural ministry. In biblical terminology, however, it appears
that the cross-cultural aspect of Christian ministry is not a necessary part of mission. To
be sure, mission may, and frequently will, involve the crossing of ethnic, cultural, or
other boundaries (cf., e.g., Acts 1:8), but this is not an integral part of the New
Testament concept of mission itself. Rather, mission in the New Testament usually
centers around a person’s (or group’s) commissioning (e.g., Matthew 28:18–20; Luke
24:46–48; John 20:21–23) to a particular task, in the present case focusing on the
proclamation of the gospel, the message of God's gracious salvation and forgiveness of
sins in Christ Jesus which is to be appropriated by faith. This soteriological focus rules
out an understanding of mission that is conceived so broadly that the message of
salvation in Christ is submerged under more general notions of "Christian service" or
even lost altogether”; available from http://www.ajkostenberger.com/pdf/NT%
20Theology%20and%20Mission.PDF; Internet; accessed August 13, 2003.
For further discussion on the distinction between “mission” and “missions,” see
Peter Beyerhaus, Missions: Which Way, with a foreword by Donald McGavran (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971); Edward R. Dayton and Davd A.
Frazer, Planning Strategies for World Evangelization, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.,1990), 57-74; George W. Peters , A Biblical
Theology of Missions (Chicago, IL: The Moody Bible Institute, 1984).
8
See David Watson, I Believe in the Church (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1978), 299; John Stott, “The Living God is a Missionary God,” in Perspectives on the
166 TORCH TRINITY JOURNAL 6 (2003)

expressions of his reality could be local. In other words, models of the

universal God may be derived from local symbols, metaphors, or
speech-form. Peter realizes that the starting point of reaching out to
non-Jewish people is a correct view of who God is. This implies two
things.
Peter’s missiological paradigm rules out the prevalence of extreme
nationalism. 9 Confining the universal God to one nation or culture
contradicts the biblical vision of who God is. “God,” observes Robbie
Castleman, “was showing Peter a new way to understand the ethnic
inclusiveness of the Gospel.”10 Peter realizes that God is not domestic
or local and therefore transcends all geographical, ideological, cultural,
and religious boundaries. The selection of Caesarea, a Roman colony
and capital of Judea and the most important commercial and political
cosmopolitan part of Palestine during Peter’s time, was not incidental.
It was the place for the first Gentile mission, with the exception of the
gospel encounter of an Ethiopian eunuch at Acts 8:27-40.
Peter’s vision compels him to bail out from his theological
entrenchment that basically domesticates the universal God. When the
voice asked Peter to “kill and eat,” he protested strongly: “Surely not
Lord” (10:13). The reason is obvious: “I have never eaten anything
impure or unclean” (v.13). In his own human Jewish mind, it is
unthinkable that God would make the so-called “chosen people ” eat
Gentile food. 11 Peter’s theological system would not allow that. The
command was given three times, and Peter vehemently refused it,
although his disobedience was temporary. Peter soon realizes that he
cannot put God inside his own Jewish box in that God is much bigger

World Christian Movement: A Reader, ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne
(Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1981), 10-18.
9
David J. Williams observes that “some Jews allowed that the Gentiles might have
a limited participation in the kingdom of God, but most regarded them as beyond hope
and destined for hell” (Acts, New International Biblical Commentary [Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1990], 197).
10
In “Doorways to Diversity, “ Robbie Castleman writes, “God was showing Peter
a new way to understand the ethnic inclusiveness of the Gospel” ; available from
http://www. urbana. org/_articles.cfm?RecordId=208; Internet; accessed August 13,
2003.
11
Gordon Wenham sees a close connection between humans and animals and the
way they are evaluated in the holiness code in a way that what made the one unclean
also made the other unclean. See Wenham’s “The Theology of Unclean Food,”
Evangelical Quarterly (1981): 6-15.
 PETER’S MISSIOLOGY 167

than the religious boundaries of Judaism! By the time he arrives at

Cornelius’ house, Peter grasps already the undeniable fact that God is
impartial, Christ’s lordship is universal, and that Gentiles, like Jews,
need to know the way of salvation. 12

PHILOSOPHICAL COMPONENT
Texts Domain Emphasis
Understanding People’s
10:1-4;22; WorldView: Basic
11:15-17 Perspective Assumptions of Reality
Verifying People’s “Truth
Claims”

The next component is philosophical in nature. A biblical view of

God challenges basic assumptions of reality, since having a biblical
vision of God does not automatically erase perspectival challenges.
Peter confronts a situation whereby he struggles with perspectival
issues from both Jewish and Gentile systems. For instance, in 10:1-4,
Cornelius has a vision,13 and the underlying perspectives of this event
requires verification.
In Peter’s missiological framework, understanding people’s world
view or basic assumptions of reality is essential.14 “Worldview,” asserts
Ronald Nash, “contains a person’s answers to the major questions in
life, almost all of which contain significant philosophical content.”15

12
Charles Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Salem, OH: Schmul
Publishing Company, Inc., 1973), 145.
13
Ben Witherington III argues that the fact that Cornelius’ prayers were accepted
by God indicates how God acts to break down the barriers between Jews and Gentiles
as something equivalent to the sacrifice of a Jew (The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-
Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1998], 348).
14
The study of worldviews contributes significantly to the designing of appropriate
strategies in missions among various cultural settings. Worldviews abound, and many
of them are not friendly to the gospel. This calls for a rigorous study of the basic
assumptions of reality that those who share the gospel always have to face. Of course,
the study of worldviews has its own dangers and benefits. For further discussion see,
David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept, with a foreword by Arthur F.
Holmes (Grand Rapids. MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 331-44.
15
Ronald Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 13.
168 TORCH TRINITY JOURNAL 6 (2003)

Peter seems to realize this as he reflects on his own Jewish tradition in

contrast with the emerging Gentile tradition, which he now encounters
face to face. Questions abound with regard to worldviews: How do
people interpret the universe in relation to the concept of God or
sacred? What is the structure of reality in a people’s society? How is
reality viewed, expressed, or manifested? For the first time in his life,
Peter views reality from a Gentile perspective in a non-Jewish
environment, i.e., Cornelius’ house. He is able to witness how Gentiles
would respond to the gospel on the basis of faith without having to use
Jewish assumptions of reality and cultural forms.16
Crucial to the philosophical component of Peter’s emerging
missionary paradigm is the verification of people’s “truth claims.”17 His
encounter with the Gentiles poses big questions: How would he know
that Cornelius’ men were telling him the truth? What was the basis of
that truth? Would a Gentile grasp truth even without encountering the
Lord Jesus Christ in a personal way? What is the criterion of a truth-
claim? How can one verify truth-claims?18

ANTHROPOLOGICAL COMPONENT
Texts Domain Emphasis
10:42-43; Identifying a Fallen Humanity
42-46 “Humanity” Recognizing a Redeemable
Humanity

In his emerging missionary paradigm, Peter discovers that God

“does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation” (10:34-

16
For an excellent discussion on the subject of worldviews and their transformation
in Jewish and Gentile environments, see David Burnett, Clash of Worlds (Nashville,
TN: Oliver-Nelson Books, 1992), 221-38.
17
Calvin E. Shenk admonishes Christians not to insist “that all truth worth
knowing is to be found in Christian faith.” Accordingly, all truth, “regardless of where
it is found, is God’s truth and is compatible with God’s revelation in Scripture. . . . But
when beliefs of other religions are incompatible with God’s revelation in Christ, they
cannot be accepted as truth” (Who Do You Say that I Am? [Scottdale, PA: Herald Press,
1997], 135).
18
A contemporary discussion on truth-claim in an Asian setting is presented in
Casiño, 193-198, using the following categories: “inferred truth,” “relative truth,”
pluralistic truth,” and “syncretistic truth.”
 PETER’S MISSIOLOGY 169

35).19 In God’s eyes, Jews and Gentiles equally need saving grace. So, a
biblically correct understanding of humanity is critical to Peter’s
missiological understanding. Thus unfolds Peter’s anthropological
challenge.
In Peter’s experience, God views humanity —Jews and Gentiles
alike--as fallen. This is an unmistakable message in his proclamation to
Cornelius’ household. His words are direct: “He commanded us to
preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God
appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify
about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of
sins through his name” (10:42-43).
In the aftermath of his vision, Peter comes face to face with a
redeemable group of humanity, i.e., Gentiles. He discovers that
Gentiles, like Jews, are fallen but can be forgiven. Peter’s breakthrough
experience at Cornelius’ house indicates God’s work in the lives of
Gentiles and that he honors their “Spirit-prompted response to the light
which they have, by providing them with more light, the light of the
gospel message.”20 The spiritual dimension of humanity and its
corresponding needs is crucial to Peter’s understanding of the
missionary task. In this case, mission primarily deals with but is not
necessarily limited to spirituality, for the biblical view of mission
highly stresses spiritual liberation with due regard to other forms of
liberating experiences of humanity.

CULTURAL COMPONENT
Text Domain Emphasis
10:9-16; Cultural Ethnocentricism
27-28 Acceptance Xenophobia

Peter’s vision unfolds his cultural entrenchment, specifically with

respect to his attitudes toward other people’s culture. “No, Lord,” was
19
Larkin surmises that “Peter and Luke are seeking to avoid two extremes: the
Jews’ ethnic pride and prejudice, which saw no Gentile as a fit object of God’s saving
call, and the view that the religions of all cultures are equally valid bases for being
acceptable to God” (164).
20
William J. Larkin, Jr., “The Contribution of the Gospels and Acts to a Biblical
Theology of Religions,” in Christianity and the Religions: A Biblical Theology of
World Religions, Evangelical Missiological Society Series, no. 2, ed. Edward Rommen
and Harold Netland (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1995), 81.
170 TORCH TRINITY JOURNAL 6 (2003)

Peter’s strong protest when he was asked to eat food that Gentiles
normally eat.21 Little did he know that the test of food is also a test of
cultural acceptance. While God challenges cultural structures at times,
especially when these structures are oppressive and tyrannical, he also
uses them to communicate his offer of love and forgiveness. Peter
discovers this disturbing paradox in relation to mission. His response is
basically ethnocentric and exclusivistic.22 “No, Lord,” he cries, “I have
never eaten anything impure.” In modern parlance, Peter may literally
say, “My Jewish food is better than Gentile food, so why should I eat
something that is produced by an inferior culture?” This is a tough
challenge, but Peter has no choice but to face it. At first, he resists the
idea of the Jewish culture mixing with that of the Gentiles. But in the
end, all he could say was: “But God has shown me that I should not call
any man impure or unclean” (10:28). This makes Peter a fast learner!
The sudden change from “anything impure” (10:14) to “any man”
(10:28) is noticeable.23
Peter’s attitude also demonstrates a high level of xenophobia. He
fears other cultures; he hates them as well. His words may appear harsh
but honest: “It is against our law to associate with the Gentiles.”
Mixing Jewish and Gentile cultures was abominable in Peter’s logic as
his religious tradition taught him. “To the Jews,” claims David J.
Williams, “Gentiles were godless, rejected by God, and given over to
every form of uncleanness.”24 Peter is fully aware of this, but on this
day, his fear of and hatred against non-Jewish cultures broke down
when he was prompted by the “prevenience of the Spirit.” This chain of
events resulted in the administering of the water baptism to the new
Gentile believers.25 Peter discovers that even the Jews are no favorites
of God in that those who are called “uncircumcised” receive the Lord’s
attention as well.

21
Witherington notes, “If indeed this vision is intended as a parable about people,
rather than animals, then the verb here may refer to Christ’s death and its effects” (350).
22
See Ralph Martin, New Testament Foundations, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 102.
23
“So strong is our commitment to ethnic distinctives of diet, “ writes Larkin,
‘especially when they are grounded in religion. We do not readily leave the comfort
zone of our religio-ethnic identity. But if Peter is to spearhead the Jerusalem church’s
Gentile mission, God must move him out of his Jewish comfort zone” (156).
24
Williams, 197.
25
Leonhard Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 2, trans. John E. Alsup,
ed. Jurgen Roloff (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981), 274.
 PETER’S MISSIOLOGY 171

STRUCTURAL COMPONENT
Text Domain Emphasis
Working Carefully within a
10:1-2;14-15; System “Fixed System”
19-20;34-35; Working Tactfully within an
11:2-3 “open” or “flexible system”

In a contemporary situation, the structural component drains the

energy of a missionary, but one expects to work within a structure.26
Peter realizes this as he tries to straddle the traditional Jewish system
and the emerging Gentile structure. He now faces the reality of the link
between the universality of the church mission and the “boundary-
breaking ministry of Jesus.”27 The Jewish structure is something he
knows best. It is, after all, fixed. The Gentile structure is something
foreign to him. It is open, or at times “without a system.”
In this regard, Peter realizes the necessity of working carefully
within a “fixed system,” i.e., strict Judaism. His background was rigid
and fixed. What has been fixed by tradition is final. To him, doing
otherwise is sin, and his vision changed all that. The line Peter uses
strongly evidences the “fixed” orientation of his religious system: “It is
against our law,” he protests, “for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or
visit him.” He struggles about the imminent fellowship between the
circumcised Jews and the non-circumcised Gentiles!
Peter’s vision, however, unveils a way to tactfully handle a once
rigid but now “open” or flexible system. 28 The collapse of ceremonial
distinction allows the apostle to discover a novel way of viewing God’s

26
For a contemporary application of structures in missions, see Roger E. Hedlund,
The Mission of the Church in the World: A Biblical Theology, with a foreword by
Arthur F. Glasser and James C. Gamaliel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1985), 226-35.
27
Donald Senior and Carroll Stuhlmueller, The Biblical Foundations for Mission
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1983), 265.
28
Don Richardson comments that Peter’s vision and the subsequent meeting with
Cornelius “is a poignant study of human prejudice gradually melting down through the
sheer goodness of the gospel of Jesus Christ” in Perspectives on the World Christian
Movement: A Reader, ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne (Pasadena, CA:
William Carey Library, 1981) 92.
172 TORCH TRINITY JOURNAL 6 (2003)

work of grace.29 The way of grace provides for an open system, not
bound by human rules or any human invention. In an open system,
grace prevails, and everyone is given the opportunity to avail himself of
it.

SOTERIOLOGICAL COMPONENT
Text Domain Emphasis
Leading People to the God of
10:34-38; Peace
42-43 Salvation Releasing People from the
Power of Darkness:
Power Encounter

In an age in which equality of truth-claims and a break-down in the

idea of the absolute predominates, the missionary component relative to
the biblical vision of salvation from sin becomes crucial. Peter realizes
that the reception of God’s forgiveness is central to the missionary task.
His discovery is revolutionizing: “God does not show favoritism but
accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right”
(10:34-35). The declaration points to the primacy of leading people to
the God of peace. Central to Peter’s message is “the good news of
peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all” (10:36). “Sins,”
observes Christoph Stenschke, “are deemed a universal human
problem.”30 Here salvation is closely linked to the forgiveness of sins,
which is found only in Jesus Christ. This is Peter’s soteriological
message. While world religions offer peace through different means,
Christ offers peace that is grounded on his unique lordship. 31 In Peter’s
logic, “peace-making is an intrinsic aspect of the church’s missionary
29
David Brown writes, “Ceremonial distinctions are now at an end, and Gentiles,
heretofore debarred from access to God through the instituted ordinances of His Church,
are now admissible on terms of entire equality with His ancient people” (A
Commentary, vol. 3, ed. Robert Jamieson [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1973], 68).
30
Christoph Stenschke, “The Need for Salvation,” in Witness to the Gospel: The
Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 134.
31
Lutheran theologian, Carl E. Braaten, forcefully writes, “The gospel opens the
door to reconciliation with God at the same time that it closes the other doors of self-
salvation through works of the laws, mystical exercises, or metaphysical gnosis ” No
Other Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 76.
 PETER’S MISSIOLOGY 173

message.”32 Here, peace takes a personal character and generates from

“the Lord of all.”
Peter’s emerging missionary paradigm includes the release of Jews
and Gentiles alike from the power of darkness. He narrates how Jesus
was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power, going around while
ministering to people by releasing them from the “power of the devil”
(10:38). In contemporary language, Peter projects a missionary task
that involves “power encounter,” which the Lord Jesus Christ
demonstrates well in his ministry. 33

CHRISTOLOGICAL COMPONENT
Text Domain Emphasis
Proclaiming the Universal Lord:
Sovereignty
10:36; Uniqueness Introducing the Universal Judge:
42-43 Justice
Testifying of the Universal
Redeemer: Mercy

At the heart of Peter’s emerging missionary paradigm is the non-

compromising and incomparable uniqueness and universal lordship of
Jesus Christ. The Gentile environment where “lords” and
“gods/goddesses” abound gives him no choice but to proclaim a
straightforward message: “Jesus Christ is Lord of all” (10:36), which
serves as the “Christological pulse” in his mission theology. 34
In Peter’s missionary message, Christ’s universal sovereignty
requires no apology. This sovereignty is not shared; it is rather
exclusive. Against those who claim that “God has not been confined to
Jesus,” Peter offers no compromise with respect to the universal

32
David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), 118.
33
In contemporary missiology, “power encounter” presupposes the need for
“power evangelism.” See, for instance, John Wimber and Kevin Springer, Power
Evangelism (San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1986). Cf. Tommy D. Lea,
“Spiritual Warfare and the Missionary Task” in Missiology, ed. John Mark Terry et al.
(Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 626-38.
34
H. Douglas Buckwalter, “The Divine Savior,” in Witness to the Gospel: The
Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peteron (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 122.
174 TORCH TRINITY JOURNAL 6 (2003)

lordship of Christ.35 His language is unmistakable: “Jesus Christ is Lord

of all” (10:36).
Also, Peter’s missionary message highlights universal justice
grounded on the person of Christ —God’s appointed Judge.36 He
proclaims a type of justice which is dispensed only by one sole
universal judge, namely, Jesus Christ, who is, in Peter’s words, “the
one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead” (10:42).37
Interestingly enough, the role of this Judge connects to his victory over
death. Thus, in Peter’s emerging missiology, justice finds its basis on
the resurrected Judge, a unique qualification that is not shared by other
justice-dispenser in world religions.38
Further, the apostle’s missionary message stresses on the offering
of mercy in terms of “forgiveness of sins” (10:43) to “everyone who
believes” through the name of Jesus Christ. In Peter’s missionary logic,
God honors the human act of faith (“believes in him”) with mercy as
God’s reward for it.39 Peter discovers that Jesus Christ is not a monarch
who simply rules creation from high above the heavens, nor a judge
who simply sits on a throne. Christ is the God of mercy who relates to
people in terms of love, forgiveness, care, and providence. Peter
declares, “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who
believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (10:43).
In Peter’s missiological framework, God’s majesty dynamically
translates into mercy. 40

35
See, Paul F. Knitter, No Other Name: A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes
Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1985), 204.
36
Of the scope of this judgment, John Stott observes, “All will be included; none
can escape,” The Message of Acts, The Bible Speaks Today (England: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1990), 191.
37
C. K. Barrett argues that the fact that “Jesus will preside at the last judgment
does not in itself claim that he is divine, though it does not mean that he is entrusted
with a divine function” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the
Apostles, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 528. Cf. Williams, 194-195.
38
“The exalted Jesus,” stresses Buckwalter, “appears on equal footing with God by
virtue of what he does and says in decreeing, preserving, and providentially leading his
saving plan through the church’s mission to completion according to his will” (123).
39
Braaten concurs, “The solus Christus provides the basis and content establishing
the sola fide” (76).
40
For further discussion on the polarity of majesty and mercy, see Claus
Westermann, The Psalms: Structure, Content, and Message (Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg, 1980), 90-92.
 PETER’S MISSIOLOGY 175

PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPONENT
Text Domain Emphasis
Handling the Trauma of Entering
10:13-14; Traumatic a “Strange World: Culture Shock
25-29; Encounter Managing Stress Caused by an
11:2-3,18 Indifferent World: Re-entry Shock

Peter’s vision is traumatic. “Surely, not, Lord” (10:14) is Peter’s

protest. He is not ready to enter into a strange world. The trauma is
obvious. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean” (10:14). This
was pure “culture shock,” with a strong religious connotation. In
contemporary missiology, this refers to a psychological challenge.
Peter’s psychological make-up was challenged as he crosses unknown
cultural and religious boundaries inside a non-Jewish world.
Peter’s novel missionary experience provides him an opportunity to
handle the trauma of entering a “strange world,” a direct result from
“culture shock.”41 His reaction after getting inside the house of
Cornelius combines confusion and apprehension that results in a shock.
He enters into a strange world which his Jewish tradition calls
“impure.”42 In verse 28, Peter admits, “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”
(10:28). 43
Peter’s astonishing experience of witnessing the Holy Spirit’s
“pouring out even on the Gentiles” (10:45) does not immunize him

41
For a contemporary application of “culture shock” to missionary work, see Paul
G. Hiebert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1985), 64-89.
42
“Peter,” observes Castleman, “perhaps remembering what it was like to feel like
an outsider, to feel ‘unclean’ after his denial of Jesus, agreed to stay with this tanner by
the sea. God was already preparing Peter for a ministry he wasn't expecting, to a people
he didn't naturally care
for--and, in fact, had been taught to avoid!”; available from
http://www.urbana.org/_articles. cfm?RecordId=208; Internet; accessed August 13,
2003.
43
Hiebert insightfully writes, “The most crucial change that must take place in our
adjustment to a new culture is to learn to see its people as ‘people’ —as human beings
like ourselves —and their culture as our culture. We need to learn to draw a mental
circle around them and us and say ‘we.’ We need to break down the barrier that
separates us into `we’ and `they’ (89).
176 TORCH TRINITY JOURNAL 6 (2003)

from managing the stress caused by an “indifferent attitude,” which

resulted in a “re-entry shock.”44 When Peter returns to his own people,
he discovers that objections were raised about his missionary encounter
with the Gentiles. His fellow Jewish believers criticized him (11:2).
Their fingers were pointing straight to his face, saying, “You went into
the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them” (11:3). 45 Peter’s
own Jewish Christian community became indifferent, an attitude that
spills out to centuries of church history. Indifference, however, was
temporary, as the circumcised Jewish believers would later realize how
God “granted the Gentiles repentance unto life” (11:18). 46

INCARNATIONAL COMPONENT
Text Domain Emphasis
Appropriating the Gospel in
10:6,11-6; Enfleshment Local Context
21-23,28 Appropriating the Gospel with
Local Symbols

The incarnational component is crucial to Peter’s emerging

missiological paradigm as it calls for the “enfleshment” of the gospel in
an actual, local setting. 47 Peter’s stay in a tanner’s house seems to
prepare him to take an incarnational approach to witnessing ministry,
especially among the Gentile population. Before the vision, however,
44
As Castleman laments, “Not everyone was thrilled with the news that Gentiles
were now included in the family of God. Becoming ethnically diverse wasn't
comfortable for the early church, nor did it seem wise to many.”
45
“This charge,” observes Longenecker, “while traditionally worded, was
tantamount to saying that Peter had set aside Christianity’s Jewish features and thereby
seriously endangered its relation with the nation” (397). The expression,
“uncircumcised men,” concurs William Robertson, shows the “greatest reproach that
could be used by a Jew” (Studies in the Acts of the Apostles [Old Tappan, NJ:
Flemming H. Revell Company, 1978], 78).
46
James W. Packer points out that “the approval given to Peter here was not meant
to imply wholesale admission of Gentiles into the church” (The Acts of the Apostles,
The Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), 88.
47
The concept of “incarnational ministry” or “incarnational missions” is as old as
ministry or missions itself, but its technical formulation in the history of Christianity is
relatively new, especially among the evangelical movements. For further discussion,
see Tereso C. Casiño, “The Text in Context: An Evangelical Approach to the
Foundations of Contextualization in the Asian Setting” (Ph.D. diss., ACTS/Asia United
Theological University, Seoul, 1996), 25-46.
 PETER’S MISSIOLOGY 177

this situation seems circumstantial, rather than intentional. Peter stays

with Simon, the tanner (10:6), someone who touches the hides of dead
animals, a neatly ordained preparatory place for missionary activities.
His vision at the tanner’s house is all about killing and eating Gentile
animals, a symbol that is close to the Gentile heart and culture. This
prepares Peter to confront the fact that God’s grace equalizes culture
and practices: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean”
(10:15).
The culinary vision provides Peter an opportunity to struggle with
the actualizing of the gospel in local context. As a result, he allows
Cornelius and his friends to respond to the gospel message in their own
way. Peter’s message on the universal significance of Jesus’ life and
ministry, death, and resurrection (10:34-43) may have strong Jewish
roots, but it does not require strict understanding of the Jewish system
or religious symbols. The response from Cornelius and his household is
basically derived from their available religious resources and
contextual environment.
When Peter declares that Jesus Christ is “Lord of all,” he
exemplifies the appropriation of biblical truth using local symbols.48
Peter does not convert Gentiles to his own Jewish way of thinking. He
simply presents the truth according to the Gentiles’ own local symbols.
He discovers that the Gentiles could receive forgiveness, minus the rite
of circumcision! He witnesses how Gentiles experience the baptism of
the Holy Spirit even without eating Jewish food nor becoming Jewish
themselves.49 In the aftermath of the baptism of the Holy Spirit at
Cornelius’ house, Peter proceeds to the “outward sign,” i.e., water

48
Richard N. Longenecker conjectures that the designation was “properly a pagan
title for deity,” which the early Christians rebaptized to become an “appropriate
christological title” (The Acts of the Apostles, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol.
9, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 393.
See also Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas
Kraabel, and David H. Juel (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1987), 83.
49
Packer writes, “Peter’s words to Cornelius and his friends are explanatory rather
than missionary. The acts of his hearers had already proved their faith. There was no
need of a confession; so the Holy Spirit acted with power before Peter had even
finished speaking” (84-85).
178 TORCH TRINITY JOURNAL 6 (2003)

baptism,” which the Lord Jesus Christ instituted in Matt. 28:19 for the
induction of believers into the church.50

PRACTICAL COMPONENT
Text Domain Emphasis
9:38-43; Sensitivity to Needy Voices
13-16;19-20 Obedience Submissive to a Commanding Voice

Coming into full circle of the missiological components in Peter’s

nascent paradigm is the practical domain. Peter’s circumstance unfolds
the practical aspect of his missiological situation. The key word here is
“obedience,”51 which also applies to Cornelius’ personal experience. In
both cases, divine intervention and preparation are evident without the
presence of supernatural manipulation to extract obedience. John Stott
observes that Cornelius and Peter “reflected on what they saw and
heard, interpreted its significance, and deliberately chose to obey.”52
Prior to the unfolding of the culinary vision, Peter’s practical
obedience is evident in the hearing of needy voices. Someone died in
Chapter 9 and Peter would respond to the call. When Cornelius’
messengers came, Peter would respond positively again. In 9:38 the
voice was, “Please come at once!” Peter registers no hesitation: He
“went with them” (9:39). Then there is the hearing of a commanding
voice. The Spirit of God commands Peter to go, and without any trace
of reluctance, he obeys. The command is clear: “Simon, three men are
looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go
with them, for I have sent them” (10:19-20). This is a contrast with his
first attitude when a vision to kill and eat came to him. In Peter’s
emerging missionary paradigm, obedience to God’s will is a painful
necessity that results in the primary mission of the church, namely,
witnessing. 53 Thus, God’s acceptance of the Gentiles “caps the
universal character of the Christian church.”54
50
Robertson, 77. Longenecker stresses that the Holy Spirit’s baptism does not
supplant baptism with water but “rather as being the spiritual reality to which water
baptism testifies” (395).
51
Peters observes that Peter exemplifies obedience to the Great Commission early
in Acts 5:32. Evidently, Peter links obedience to the gift of the Holy Spirit (192).
52
Stott, 195.
53
See for instance Acts 1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39-41, among others. For a
discussion on witnessing as the primary mission of the church, see Dale Moody, The
 PETER’S MISSIOLOGY 179

CONCLUSION
Major components of Peter’s emerging missionary paradigm
unfold a vision for world missions beyond the boundaries of Jewish
systems. Peter’s contribution to the shaping of mission theology in the
church may have been marginalized because of the abundant stress on
Paul’s missionary efforts. However, Peter’s vision in Acts 10 and its
corresponding results from Acts 11 onward proves the apostle’s
significant impact on and contribution to missionary tasks in the
ensuing centuries of church history. The events surrounding Peter’s
vision may be descriptive, but much of its content appears normative
even in today’s missionary standard or expectation. Peter’s vision in
Acts 10 does not exhaust the components that are expected of a
missionary paradigm. Other significant passages exist to provide the
overall framework of Peter’s missiological thinking. None, however,
qualified to be as dramatic and profound as the components that have
been delineated from Peter’s culinary vision in relation to
contemporary theologies, policies, strategies, and methodologies of
contemporary global missions.

WORKS CITED
Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the
Apostles. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994.
Beyerhaus, Peter. Missions: Which Way. With a foreword by Donald
McGavran. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971.
Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of
Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991.
Braaten, Carl E. No Other Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press,
1992.
Brown, David. A Commentary. Vol. 3. Edited by Robert Jamieson
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973.
Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles, 3d rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI:

Word of Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981),
429.
54
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1970), 334.
180 TORCH TRINITY JOURNAL 6 (2003)

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990. 264.

Buckwalter, H. Douglas. “The Divine Savior.” In Witness to the
Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David
Peterson, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1998.
Burnett, David. Clash of Worlds. Nashville, TN: Oliver-Nelson Books,
1992.
Carter, Charles and Ralph Earle. The Acts of the Apostles. Salem, OH:
Schmul Publishing Company, Inc., 1973.
Casiño, Tereso C. “The Text in Context: An Evangelical Approach to
the Foundations of Contextualization in the Asian Setting. ” Ph.D.
diss., ACTS/Asia United Theological University, Seoul, Korea,
1996.
Clark, Andrew. “The Role of the Apostles.” In Witness to the Gospel:
The Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson.
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.
Conzelmann, Hanz. Acts of the Apostles. Translated by James Limburg,
A. Thomas Kraabel, and David H. Juel. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress
Press, 1987.
Dayton, Edward R. and David A. Frazer. Planning Strategies for World
Evangelization, rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co.,1990.
Gilliland, Dean. Pauline Theology and Mission Practice. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1983.
Goppelt, Leonhard, Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 2. Translated
by John E. Alsup, ed. Jurgen Roloff. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981.
Goulder, Michael. St. Paul versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1970.
Hedlund, Roger E. The Mission of the Church in the World: A Biblical
Theology. With a foreword by Arthur F. Glasser and James C.
Gamaliel. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985.
Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries. Grand
 PETER’S MISSIOLOGY 181

Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985.

Knitter, Paul F. No Other Name: A Critical Survey of Christian
Attitudes Toward the World Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books, 1985.
Ladd, George E. Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.
Larkin, William J. Jr., Acts, IVPNT Commentary Series. Edited by
Grant R. Osborne. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995.
________. “The Contribution of the Gospels and Acts to a Biblical
Theology of Religions.” In Christianity and the Religions: A
Biblical Theology of World Religions. Evangelical Missiological
Society Series, No. 2, ed. Edward Rommen and Harold Netland.
Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1995.
Lea, Tommy D. “Spiritual Warfare and the Missionary Task.” In
Missiology, ed. John Mark Terry et al., 626-638. Nashville, TN:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.
Longenecker, Richard N. The Acts of the Apostles. The Expositor’s
Bible Commentary. Vol. 9, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
Moody, Dale. The Word of Truth . Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981.
Martin, Ralph. New Testament Foundations. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.
Nash, Ronald. Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to
Philosophy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999
Naugle, David K. Worldview: The History of a Concept. With a
foreword by Arthur F. Holmes. Grand Rapids. MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.
Packer, James W. The Acts of the Apostles, The Cambridge Bible
Commentary. Cambridge: The University Press, 1966.
Peters, George W. A Biblical Theology of Missions. Chicago, IL: The
Moody Bible Institute, 1984.
Richardson, Don. Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A
Reader. Ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, 89-99.
Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1981.
182 TORCH TRINITY JOURNAL 6 (2003)

Robertson, William. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Old Tappan,

NJ: Flemming H. Revell Company, 1978.
Senior, Donald and Carroll Stuhlmueller. The Biblical Foundations for
Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1983.
Shenk, Calvin E. Who Do You Say that I Am? Scottdale, PA: Herald
Press, 1997.
Stenschke, Christoph. “The Need for Salvation.” In Witness to the
Gospel: The Theology of Acts. ed. I. Howard Marshall and David
Peterson, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1998.
Stott, John. “The Living God is a Missionary God.” In Perspectives on
the World Christian Movement: A Reader. Ed. Ralph D. Winter
and Steven C. Hawthorne, 10-18. Pasadena, CA: William Carey
Library, 1981.
________. The Message of Acts, The Bible Speaks Today. Nottingham,
England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990.
Watson, David. I Believe in the Church. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1978.
Wenham, Gordon. “The Theology of Unclean Food.” Evangelical
Quarterly (1981): 6-15.
Westermann, Claus. The Psalms: Structure, Content, and Message.
Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1980.
Williams, David J. Acts, New International Biblical Commentary.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990.
Wimber, John and Kevin Springer, Power Evangelism. San Francisco,
CA: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1986.
Witherington, Ben III. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1998.