Rise up, Peter, kill and eat: Should Christians Follow the Dietary Laws? [Part 4]

Acts 10: Peter’s Vision

Now we come to the second most quoted passage by those who teach and believe that the dietary laws are no longer in force. They say Peter’s vision is clear – God told him he could now eat anything he wanted to. Did He really? And if Jesus had declared that we could eat anything we wanted in Mark 7, why do we find Peter years later still eating ‘kosher’? The events of Acts 10 took place some ten years after the death and resurrection of Messiah. How did Peter still not know he could eat anything, whether clean or unclean? Is that why God gave him this vision – to reinforce the fact that there was no longer a distinction between clean and unclean animals for food?

It has been assumed for generations that the sheet lowered in Peter’s vision contained all manner of ‘unclean animals’. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 prohibited God’s people from eating certain animals, which were designated ‘unclean’ and therefore not fit for human consumption. So this passage in Acts 10 has been interpreted as the definitive moment where Jewish believers in Messiah (Peter was after all a Jew) were allowed to abandon the dietary laws as set out in the Torah. Jesus had ‘declared all foods clean’ and Peter’s vision was underlining the fact, because Peter (amongst others) had not yet ‘got the message’. But is that actually what this passage teaches? Let’s examine it a little more closely.

The immediate context in Acts 10 is that a Roman centurion, named Cornelius, had a vision. He was garrisoned at Caesarea, but was a ‘god-fearer’, which means he was sympathetic to the Jewish religion and worshipped the God of Israel, but had not gone as far as actual conversion. However, he gave alms (charity) to Jewish people and causes and was well known and well respected among the Jewish population in Caesarea. This matters because according to Jewish regulations, a non-Jew (a Gentile) was actually not allowed to follow the Torah. It was considered ‘for Jews only’ (and still is today for many Jews). If Cornelius wanted to be properly ‘in covenant’ with Israel’s people and God, then he needed to undergo formal conversion or else he was not part of God’s people and had no share in the world to come, which was also for Jews only (both Jews by birth and by conversion). Thus a Gentile could not be ‘saved’ (to use Christian terminology) unless he became a Jew first. We have seen something of this in our discussion of Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council. Such a requirement however was not something God had imposed, but was a regulation imposed by the Jewish elders.

At three o’clock in the afternoon, Cornelius was engaged in prayer. This was the time all Jews prayed and was also the time when the afternoon sacrifices began in the Temple in Jerusalem. His prayers reached to God, who sent an angel to tell Cornelius to send for Peter, who was in Joppa.

Meanwhile, Peter was on the roof of the house where he was staying. He was also praying, but the text tells us that food was on his mind – he was hungry and food was being prepared for their meal in the house below. Peter fell into a trance-like state, during which he had a vision of a great sheet being lowered, containing all manner of animals, birds and reptiles. He heard a voice (which we understand to have been God’s voice) telling him to ‘get up...kill and eat’. Peter refused, because, in his own words, he ‘had never eaten anything common or unclean’. This happens three times, each time Peter refusing.

As the vision ends and Peter is pondering its meaning, there is a knock at the door and there stand the three men from Cornelius. Peter invites them in, then the next day, he accompanies them to Caesarea, where he enters the house of Cornelius and where the Holy Spirit descends on the gathered crowd, just as He had descended on the disciples previously.

The question is, do these two events have anything to do with each other, or are they simply separate accounts of things that bear no relation? And if they are related, what is that relationship?

A vision

The first thing we have to notice is that this was a vision. It did not happen literally. And that is one of the keys to understanding this passage. In Scripture, visions are never literal. The vision Ezekiel had of the valley of dry bones was not literal – he did not literally raise an army from dead bones; the vision the baker had in the story of Joseph was not literally about bread and birds pecking at it; Pharaoh’s vision of seven lean cows eating up seven fat cows was not literally about cows eating each other; John’s vision in Revelation was not about a literal seven headed dragon; Joseph did not see a literal sheaf of corn bowing down to him. No, these visions were symbolic, the elements of the vision represented something else. That is the nature of visions: the elements represent something else. To interpret Peter’s vision about animals in a sheet being about abrogating the dietary laws, is to alter the nature of visions and their interpretation. The logical interpretation would be to assume that in this case, as with all other visions in Scripture, it is not actually about food, but about something the animals represented. The question we need to ask ourselves then is what did the elements of the vision represent? Peter himself asked this question – he pondered the meaning of the vision. He did not automatically assume that it was about the animals themselves and that now he could eat anything he wanted, including those things God had said were unclean and therefore not for food. In fact, Peter already knew it was not about food; if it had been, then surely the meaning was obvious. No, he knew that God was not changing His eternal laws and had heard the words of Jesus with his own ears:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.  Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5v17-19 NIV, emphasis mine)

All manner of animals

The second thing we need to note is that the sheet did not just contain animals God had said were forbidden. It contained all manner of animals. That means there were both clean and unclean animals in that sheet. So when the Voice told him to ‘rise...kill and eat’, why did Peter not just grab a lamb and eat that? It is this dilemma that has caused much of the misinterpretation of this passage – that, and not understanding Jewish ‘halakah’ (the (usually) unwritten rules and regulations that controlled and regulated the way the Jews were to live their lives). It was a combination of three sources: the written Torah, Jewish customs, and rabbinic interpretations of Scripture (what we call the Old Testament, but particularly the books of Moses). These rules are known as the oral torah or traditions. Tom Bradford, in a sermon on Acts 10, says:

“Just as Christian doctrines form the subject and apology for virtually every sermon given in a Church each week, so does Halakhah form the subject and apology for everything that is taught and practiced within the Synagogue. And in the New Testament era nearly every Jew, whether living in the Holy Land or out in the Diaspora (except for Sadducees and the priesthood), was connected to the Synagogue system in the same way that nearly every Christian in modern times is connected (whether loosely or firmly) to the Church. I draw this Church and Synagogue parallel for the express purpose of creating a familiar mental image for you to give you a meaningful idea of how the Jews, Believers or otherwise, practiced their faith and formed their theology in the time of the Apostles.”

One of these rules we have already described in the post about Mark 7. To reiterate: God said some animals were clean and some unclean – that is some were for food and some were not for food. However, the Jewish halakah stated that a clean animal (fit for consumption) could become unfit for consumption by association with unwashed hands or unclean animals. Thus, in Peter’s vision, the sheet contained all manner of animals that were crawling over one another, making, in Jewish oral tradition, the clean animals unfit to eat. These are the animals designated ‘common’ in the passage in question – they were not ‘unclean’ because some of them at least were things God had said were clean; but they had become contaminated and therefore were now considered unfit to eat. In fact, Peter only mentions two categories of animals in the sheet – unclean and common; there is no reference to anything clean. Yet ‘common’ is not a Biblical designation for food. That was added by tradition.

So Peter was saying he had never eaten anything God had declared ‘unclean’ and neither had he eaten anything that was contaminated or ‘common’ according to Jewish rules and regulations.

Acts 10 takes place some ten years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, so why was Peter still not eating things that were declared unclean, especially if Jesus had ‘declared all foods clean’ in Mark 7? The most common answer is that he was living in an age of transition, between Judaism and Christianity and had not yet thrown off the yoke of Jewish law. The answer that aligns with the rest of Scripture and doesn’t have one part contradicting another, however, is that Peter was aware that God was not changing the laws He had declared ‘eternal’ and that Jesus did not in fact declare all animals now clean and fit for food.

Four Corners

In the vision, Peter saw a great sheet held by its four corners. Is that significant? There is a rule of exegesis known as ‘the law of first mention’ or, in other words, interpreters should look at other places in the Bible where a particular word or phrase is used to see it if sheds and light on the passage under scrutiny.

The ‘four corners’ most often refers to the four corners of the earth. It is a figurative expression, an idiom, meaning ‘the whole earth’ or ‘all parts of the world’:

“And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” (Isaiah 11v12)

“And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth.” (Revelation 7v1)

As this is a vision, it makes sense that the ‘four corners’ of the sheet are representative of the four corners of the earth. The four corners therefore represented the four compass points and were intended to indicate the world and those who lived on it. (This will make more sense when we find out the true meaning of Peter’s vision).

In some Jewish literature, the Gentile nations are represented by certain beasts. This is a continuation of the idea first mentioned in Daniel 7, where the four nations are represented by four (unclean) animals:

“In apocalyptic Jewish literature, unclean animals often symbolize Gentile nations. Beginning with the vision of four empires symbolized by four beasts in Daniel 7, the rabbis made equations between various nationalities and various unclean birds and animals. For example, “Why is Rome compared to a wild pig? To teach you this. Just as the swine reclines and puts forth its cloven hooves as if to say, ‘See, I am clean,’ so too does the kingdom of [Rome] boast of establishing judicial tribunals while engaging in violence and robbery” (Leviticus Rabbah 13:5. Cf. Matthew 7:6). The sages make similar connections with other animals mentioned in Scripture, including snakes, scorpions, lions, and leopards.” (Daniel Lancaster)

Thus Peter’s vision is symbolic, but at this stage it was by no means clear what it meant – Peter was puzzled by it and ‘pondered what it could mean’.

Common and unclean

We have already seen that Peter designated all the animals in the sheet as either unclean or common. Nothing is therefore fit to eat, in his estimation and in the estimation of Jewish halakah. So when he is told to ‘kill and eat’, naturally he refuses. In all probability, Peter saw this as some kind of test, or he would surely not have refused a clear instruction from God Himself!

And it didn’t happen just once, but three times!

When God responds to Peter’s refusal, He says:

“What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”(Acts 10v15 KJV)

What God does not do in this statement is mention anything ‘unclean’. He only tells Peter not to call anything He has cleansed ‘common’. So what does this mean? It means, simply, that God is not changing the laws of clean and unclean. He is not saying that things which He designated as unclean are now clean. He is saying, similar to what Jesus said in Mark 7, that things that are clean should not be considered unfit, unclean or treated as such. If a lamb is ‘clean’ for food, then it is clean, even if it has been in association with a pig, which is unclean.

Let’s now consider a bit of Greek here. The words ‘common’ and ‘unclean’ are entirely different words in the Greek. Common is the Greek word koinos; unclean is the Greek word akathartos.

Koinos refers to biblically ‘clean’ foods that have become contaminated by association with that which is unclean, hence some of the animals in the sheet, while clean in themselves, are not fit to eat, according to Jewish tradition (but not according to God’s laws). Thus koinos refers to that which man has defined as ‘unclean’ but in deference to God’s declaration of what is clean/unclean and to create a distinction between the two, the Jews called the alleged contaminated foods ‘common’ (koinos). Akathartos on the other hand refers to that which God has declared unclean. The word ‘koinos’ does not appear in Leviticus 11 in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (known as the Septuagint or LXX). For Peter, there was nothing in the sheet he could eat, because the food items (clean animals) were contaminated by their association with the non-food items (unclean animals as defined in Leviticus). The word ‘akathartos’ does appear in the LXX in Leviticus 11. Everywhere the Hebrew word ‘tamei’ appears in the Old Testament, it is translated by the word ‘akathartos’ in the LXX. So by ‘unclean’ Peter meant those animals God had declared unclean (non-food items) and by ‘common’ he meant those animals which were inherently clean (food items) but that man had declared unclean by their association with actual unclean animals.

If we insert these Greek words into the passage, it reads:

“And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.  But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is koinos or akathartos.  And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou koinos.” (Acts 10v13-15 KJV)

If this passage was actually about rescinding the food laws, why did God only tell Peter not to call common (koinos) what God had called clean? Why did He not also tell him not to call unclean (akathartos) that which He had cleansed? There is only one answer to that – God was not in fact saying that unclean animals were now clean and fit for human consumption. In reality, God was very careful to record in Acts 10 that He was referring only to those animals that were deemed common, and not those animals which He had declared unclean.

“Two different words used to describe the animals on the sheet in the vision: common and unclean. These two words describe two things that are completely different in Greek – common is koinos, unclean is akathartos. Koinos is generally used in the Bible to describe something that is a violation of a tradition of the Jewish Elders (not God’s laws). Eg, eating bread without ceremonially washing your hands would make the bread koinos (cf Mark 7). Akathartos is used to describe things that are unclean according to Torah (the Law of Moses). Every time Peter tells God he has never eaten anything koinos or akathartos, God replies by telling him not to call koinos what He has made clean. According to tradition, a clean animal became unclean (common/koinos) if it had been in contact with an unclean (akathartos) animal. Since all manner of animals were in the sheet, then it follows that, from Peter’s answer, that some were koinos and others were akathartos, meaning some were clean by Biblical definition, but unclean/common by tradition.” (Truth Ignited)

So then, let’s assume for a moment that this passage actually is about food, then God is merely giving Peter permission to eat things that are ‘common’ (koinos) and not things that are ‘unclean’ (akathartos). Not once in the entire vision did God say not to call something clean that He had already declared to be unclean (akathartos). Thus the only animals in the sheet that Peter was expected to kill and eat would have been those that were designated by God as clean. This would support the view that Jesus, in Mark 7, was declaring only clean foods to be clean and fit for consumption. (See post here for more details).

Traditional Understanding

The church has traditionally interpreted this passage to claim that God has done away with the requirement to eat or not eat certain things. Thus they say the vision categorically declares that all animals are now clean and fit to eat, much like they have interpreted the passage in Mark 7 to say that ‘Jesus declared all foods clean’.

But the interesting thing is, if God, who never changes, did repeal His dietary laws, then it shows He is in fact subject to change. And Jesus’ statement about it being easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or stroke of a pen to fail from God’s law is meaningless. Plus Jesus’ warning about teaching men to disobey God’s law (Matthew 5v17-19) is likewise meaningless. It means that Scripture is not certain, the God of the Old Testament contradicts the God of the New Testament, and we cannot rely on any of it for truth. This is Marcionism and not even disguised!

If the vision on the other hand is not about food but about people, then the harmony of Scripture is preserved. It does not contradict God’s Torah, or Jesus’ pronouncement that the law will stand as long as heaven and earth are in place. It also explains why Peter could refuse to do what God was ostensibly telling him to do without suffering any penalty.

Daniel Lancaster puts it like this:

“We can refer to Simon Peter’s explanation of the vision as the “call-no-man-unclean” interpretation. It has many advantages over the all-foods-clean interpretation. It does not contradict the Torah or require God to have changed His mind or altered His unalterable law. It maintains the Master’s prediction that the Torah will endure as long as heaven and earth and that even the least of its commandments must be practiced. The call-no-man-unclean interpretation explains why Simon Peter does not actually have to eat the unclean foods in the sheet. The animals are symbolic. The call-no-man-unclean interpretation fits the context of the story in Acts 10–11. Without the call-no-man-unclean interpretation, the vision seems unrelated to the story. Finally, the call-no-man-unclean interpretation lays the groundwork for the central thrust of the book of Acts: Paul’s mission to the Gentiles and the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom”.

Peter’s Own Interpretation

Peter actually gives us the interpretation of the vision himself. If Peter, writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, tells us what the vision meant, then should we not accept his interpretation and not go inventing another interpretation of our own?

Not once do we see Peter ever interpreting the vision as meaning he could now eat things God had called ‘unclean’.

“Peter actually gives us the interpretation of the vision, Acts 10:28 (KJV) states, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Never once do we see an indication that Peter took the vision to mean that he could now eat pigs. This is because he knew the process of how dreams and visions are used, and he knew that YHWH would not actually change His Laws.” (From Truth Ignited)

The Jews had taken the notion of clean, unclean and common to extremes. God had said that the Jews were to be a light to the Gentiles, but the Jews of Jesus’ day said that Gentiles were to be avoided. They were ‘unclean’ (common, koinos) and you too could become ‘unclean-by-association’, so you were not allowed to enter their homes, or eat with them, or even speak to them if you could avoid it. Nowhere in the Torah had God ever said that a Jew could become ritually unclean by association with Gentiles

But this ruling is nowhere found in Torah. It is halakah, or an additional ruling created by the Jewish leaders supposedly to preserve the purity of the Jewish people. Thus Peter, when he arrived at the home of Cornelius, could say:

“You are well aware that it is against our law (NOTE: Not ‘God’s law’) for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile” (Acts 10v28)

Let’s examine this verse a little:

The Greek word translated ‘unlawful’ is ‘athemitos’ and can indeed be rendered ‘unlawful’. However, if Peter wanted us to understand that the prohibition related to a Torah command, he would have used the word ‘anomos’ (against law). Thayer’s and Smith’s Bible Dictionary defines anomos as “destitute of the Mosaic law, departing from the law, a violator of the law, lawless, wicked” while the definition of athemitos is given as “socially unacceptable, taboo” but not as something proscribed by the Torah. Thus David Stern translates the verse:

“He said to them, "You are well aware that for a man who is a Jew to have close association with someone who belongs to another people, or to come and visit him, is something that just isn't done. But God has shown me not to call any person common or unclean.” (10v28, CJB)

 

 While it was common knowledge that Jews did not keep company with Gentiles, God had told them they were to be a light to the Gentiles and to keep His laws so that Gentiles would also keep His laws. Yet the Jews had decided that the Law of God was exclusively theirs and that Gentiles were unfit company! But just as clean meat is not contaminated by association with unclean meat, or unwashed hands, so too a Jew is not contaminated by association with a Gentile. In fact, the opposite was true. Tom Bradford says:

 

“This was NOT new theology. This was NOT that Christ’s death had changed the spiritual status of gentiles from unclean (because gentiles weren’t unclean). It was only new Halakhah for Peter and for virtually all Jews. God was only reinforcing and instructing about what had always been... Now understand this: God is not really doing something new. Check the prophets and psalms. God always accepted Gentiles. It is simply that Peter and others did not understand this. They thought Yeshua [Jesus] was just for Jews and converts. God is not repealing anything. He always wanted Gentiles to draw near (check Numbers 15:14-15). The anti-Gentile sentiment of Judaism was from the Second Temple period and was not from God. God never commanded a “Court of the Gentiles,” for instance, but allowed Gentiles to draw near. Peter simply needed education, not a reversal of the Torah.”

When God told Peter not to call common what He had made clean, what did He mean? To answer the question, we need to understand what the animals in the sheet represented and not get side tracked by what they are. Is God really saying that pork is now clean? No, the animals represent Gentiles. How can we know that? Because Peter himself says so! The whole context of this account is that God is bringing salvation to the Gentiles just as He brought salvation to the disciples and it is setting the groundwork for Paul’s future mission to the Gentiles. When Peter expplains this vision to the elders in Jerusalem, he said it taught him something – was that ‘something’ that he could now break the Torah? No, it was that God had accepted the Gentiles into the faith in the same way the Jewish believers had been accepted – on the basis of faith. Nationality was not important – believing in the Messiah was what counted.

Of course there are some Christians who believe the vision is about Gentiles and about food, even though Peter only gives the one interpretation of it.

The commentator F. F. Bruce agrees that the vision is symbolic (parabolic – the elements of the account are symbolic, representative of something else); he even acknowledges Peter’s own interpretation that the vision is about Gentiles coming to faith in the Jewish Messiah, but then he goes on to claim that it is ‘not wholly parabolic’ and that the vision is about both Gentiles and food.

“Yet the cleansing of the food is not wholly parabolic; there is a connection between abrogation of the Levitical food laws and the removal of the barrier between Jews and gentiles.” (F.F Bruce)

Bruce’s view is not uncommon – the vast majority of the Christian world thinks the same way. Most Christian commentators (mostly Gentiles) interpret the New Testament with the view that the food laws have been cancelled and/or most of the rest of the Torah laws have also been abolished. But that is what is known as eisegesis, not exegesis. Eisegesis is where the commentator reads into the text some presupposed teaching; exegesis is where the text is looked at for its own merits to see what it actually says.

“Eisegesis: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas” (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

It was only when the men delivered their message – that Cornelius wanted him to come to his house – that Peter finally understood what the vision meant. Under God’s explicit instruction, Peter did not hesitate to invite the men in, had a meal with them and then the following day he travelled with them to Caesarea. When he arrived, again he did not hesitate to enter the house, where he found quite a crowd gathered – Cornelius, his family and his friends. He then explained to them that while the traditional Jewish rules prohibited Jews from associating with Gentiles, God had shown him he was not to call any person common or unclean:

“But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection.” (v28-29).

So if that was Peter’s own explanation of the vision, why do many (if not most) Christians insist that the vision is about eating things previously forbidden?

Ron Cantor, a Messianic Jewish believer, writes:

“Here’s what did happen: 1) Peter wondered what the meaning of the vision was (v. 17) because he knew that God was not outlawing what was clearly written in the Torah about kosher and non-kosher meats. And 2) men from Cornelius’ house knocked on the door and asked for Peter. If Peter had not had the vision that he did, he would not have gone with them. Jews did not enter the homes of Gentiles. This had less to do with any type of racism or superiority complex and more to do with ritual purity and Levitical laws. But Peter does the unthinkable, he goes with them to Cornelius’s house and enters. Peter understands already what many scholars still stumble over—the vision had nothing to do with food laws but about God accepting Gentiles into the Kingdom of God”
https://www.roncantor.com/post/acts-15-so-misunderstood

Conclusion

As with all visions, Peter’s vision is symbolic; that is, the elements in the vision are not to be taken literally, but are representative of something else. The sheet with its four corners represents the world – God was accepting all comers from all parts of the world if they put their faith and trust in the Messiah. The animals too represented the Gentile nations. Peter understood the vision to mean that he should not consider Gentiles as unfit company – God will accept them on the basis of their faith, just as He accepted the Jews. Indeed, this is the ‘mystery of the Gospel’ as defined by Paul in Ephesians 3v6:

“This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.”

There is no logical reason to think Peter’s vision in Acts 10 is about making unclean animals fit to eat. Peter never suggests such a thing and even God does not say that he should consider the unclean (akathartos) clean – no, He says that Peter should not call common (koinos) what God has cleansed.

Certain animals are declared ‘unclean’ (akathartos; the Hebrew word is tamei) by God and these are recorded in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. These are things that are forbidden for food; they are not to be eaten. There is no hint that these laws would one day be repealed after the coming of the Messiah (the traditional Christian understanding). But this vision was never about animals, clean or unclean; it was about people and specifically about Gentiles. Jewish believers were not to avoid them simply because they were Gentiles (as they had been taught by the Jewish rabbis). They were not unclean; they weren’t even ‘common’. God was accepting them just as they were, if they had faith in Jesus. Thus the vision was not about food at all. It was about God accepting Gentiles into the faith based on their trust in Jesus and His shed blood. Gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism first; they were acceptable as they were – Gentiles who had faith. This is further borne out by the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15, which we have already discussed.

So if the laws of clean and unclean have not changed thus far, is there anything else in the New Testament that would state or even hint at them changing later, particularly for Gentiles? Watch this space.

Further reading:

Does the New Testament void Old Testament dietary laws

Understanding Peter's Vision

A Hebraic Understanding of Peter's Vision