Acts 10:34-43

“I truly understand that God shows no partiality…” It is as radical a statement as a Jew can make, even for one who has been hanging out with the wrong crowd for three years. God showing partiality was precious to God's people for they were set apart by a law and a land and out of all the nations of the earth they alone were God’s own. But now Peter has the audacity to proclaim God has opened the exclusive country club to anyone in any nation and has waived the application fee. The trouble I have with this text is that Peter (or Luke working off the transcript of Peter’s Pentecost sermon) just redefines God’s partiality. God appeared, not to everyone, but to a few witnesses who ate and drank with Jesus. And God is partial to those who believe their testimony and fear God and do what is acceptable. And furthermore, if Paul’s recollection of Peter’s progress in not showing partiality is accurate, Peter himself pulls back from eating and drinking with Gentiles because James’s “people” exert peer pressure. (Galatians 2:12) Apparently even the first century church wasn't completely convinced that God shows “no partiality”. Of course partiality is precious to the church of our day as well and we define what is acceptable to God by our doctrine and practice by excluding brothers and sisters who believe in Jesus because their way of believing is less than Orthodox or Pentecostal or Calvinist or Lutheran or whatever. But if the chosen people were so wrong about God that they killed the anointed One filled with the Holy Spirit by hanging him on a tree maybe our vision is partial as well. What if the cross really does mean God shows no partiality, period, end of sentence? I know the stakes are high and eternal futures are on the line, but if we believed God showed no partiality we wouldn't either and without rewriting the rules I think that might be acceptable to God.