Articles
What Is Acceptable?
Upon the apostle Peter's return to Jerusalem, after having been sent to Cornelius to bring the gospel message of salvation to him and his household, he was met by some Jewish brethren who made a statement of accusation: “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!” (Acts 11:2); they were not telling Peter something he didn't already know, but were saying this as a matter of condemnation. To them, what Peter had done was unacceptable!
Of course, we know that Peter took the time, then, to explain himself: the vision he had received, why he went, what happened when with them, and the conclusion he had come to after being an eyewitness to all of these things (Acts 11:4-17). His conclusion was, “If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” (Acts 11:17). When his accusers heard Peter's testimony, they said to him, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (Acts 11:18); they, too, concluded that God approved of what he had done. What once was a cause for condemnation was now understood as a reason for rejoicing!
The point that must be made today is that God's approval must be the standard for us in determining what is acceptable or unacceptable — not our opinions, not "what we've always been doing," or even what "most people or churches are doing." The fact is, "what we've always been doing," our opinions, or what "most people or churches are doing" may already be unacceptable to God, and does not change just because it is what we think it is how things should be. Truth is not a matter of opinion or majority consensus, and neither is the matter of what is right in God's sight.
Far too often, though, man dispenses with the Bible and what God has to say and simply does what he wants to do. In this case, the accusers of Peter accepted the testimony of Peter as evidence enough to change their opinions, and they then accepted what they had, prior to hearing what had happened, believed to be unacceptable; in many situations today, such responses are rarely seen or heard. As with many of the Jews in the first century who continued to reject the idea that Gentiles were just as worthy of receiving the message of forgiveness and salvation (cf. Acts 22:22), some today reject God's word on certain issues because it is socially unacceptable, goes against long-held traditions, or is simply personally undesirable. In many cases, God's will on the issue at hand is not even considered at all! Far too often, when individuals or organizations are challenged for what they do, believe, and teach, they simply urge the challengers to "keep your faith to yourself, and leave everyone else alone," and are, regrettably, uninterested in discussing the matter to see what God has to say about it.
But if we are going to claim to be God's people and followers of Jesus Christ, we should be keenly interested in what they have to say about anything and everything, should we not? Every faithful disciple should ask, as did Saul, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” (Acts 9:6); every disciple should be striving to be “finding out what is acceptable to the Lord” (Eph. 5:10). Paul set forth what should be the goal of every disciple: “we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him” (2 Cor. 5:9).
Some today, including sincerely religious people and even religious leaders and teachers, are making the claim, "It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are sincere," but this is not true, nor has sincerity ever been the sole determinant of what is or is not acceptable to God. For example, under the Old Law, God commanded, “Whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it shall not be acceptable on your behalf. And whoever offers a sacrifice of a peace offering to the Lord, to fulfill his vow, or a freewill offering from the cattle or the sheep, it must be perfect to be accepted” (Lev. 22:20, 21). From this passage, we can clearly see some offerings were unacceptable and the ones that were acceptable were clearly described. It is also clear, from God's condemnation of some of the sacrifices the Israelites offered, that they should have known the difference (cf. Mal. 1:7-8, 12-14). Again, it must be noted that God was the one who determined what was, and was not, acceptable — not man.
Sometimes, though, we allow human-derived religious traditions or personal opinions to override what God has clearly told us, or simply to be what guides us when we do not know what God has said. In Romans 14, some had the opinion and belief that eating meat was not allowed, while others saw no problem eating meats; who determined who was right? Someone had to be 'wrong' on that matter, and the fact was, God was willing to accept someone who ate meat and someone who didn't eat meat (cf. Rom. 14:3, 18). The problem arose because one side or the other insisted his or her personal belief on the matter was the only proper view [i.e., acceptable to God]; the problem was God did not care if they ate, or refrained from eating! Personal opinion only caused strife and division, as is always the case when God's will is not consulted.
Consider, also, King David, who wanted to build God a temple worthy of His glory. God had said nothing, but David took the initiative and determined he would build God a house. He even told his plans to the man of God, Nathan the prophet, who gave him the approval to go ahead, saying to David, “Go, do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you” (2 Sam. 7:1-3).
But both David and Nathan were wrong to assume God would approve. In fact, God came to Nathan and told him David would not build the house, and God told David, “Whereas it was in your heart to build a temple for My name, you did well that it was in your heart. Nevertheless you shall not build the temple, but your son who will come from your body, he shall build the temple for My name” (1 Kings 8:18, 19). In other words, the idea was good, but the actual building of the house by David was not acceptable to God. He would even tell David, “You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight” (1 Chron. 22:8). David being the builder was not acceptable to God.
Now, let's note that God even told David, “…you did well that it was in your heart. Nevertheless you shall not build the temple.” It was a good thought, but God did not approve. The point we must learn us, even when we think of something to be a 'good' work, we cannot presume it is acceptable to God; we must see from His written word that it is approved before we can say with any certainty that it is acceptable to Him.
There are a lot of things we can do for the Lord in our service to Him and in our worship of Him, but we must first consider and know what is acceptable to Him; that will come only through a study and search of His written word. Do not presume it is acceptable, especially when He has said nothing.
King David would agree. — Steven Harper
