 |
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
Abstract Peter's housetop vision of the unclean animals in Joppa is seen by many to be conclusive evidence that God
has either changed or annulled the Levitical dietary laws. Such an interpretation of the text may appear quite solid, until one notices that neither Peter nor any of the other Apostles ever got this message. Could it be that the
early disciples saw something in the context which we do not, something that enabled them to see the God's message entirely differently? A careful look at the biblical and historical context reveals many difficulties with the
traditional interpretation, and a much different understanding of what God was doing in the lives of His early Jewish servants in order to get the Gospel to the nations. Introduction In the Bible it is written: "And (Peter) became very hungry, and would have
eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of
fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or
unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, what God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven." (Acts 10:10-16) A full reading of the
entire context is helpful to complete the picture: God is evidently challenging Peter's understanding and application of the dietary laws because it is somehow impacting his willingness to preach the Gospel to Gentiles. This is
definitely not an easy passage to unravel; in order to understand God's message one must look very carefully at the entire scriptural and historical context. The Traditional Interpretation A Common Perspective Let us begin by noting the traditional interpretation of this text, which is that God was revealing to Peter that the ceremonial Mosaic laws, and in particular the dietary laws, found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are no longer binding for the New Testament Church, and therefore that any hesitation on the part of believers to interact with others for fear of becoming ceremonially unclean is no longer appropriate. A quick check in most any good evangelical Bible commentary will confirm that this view is quite widely held. In fact, most Christians who read the text before us actually come to it with this presupposition already firmly entrenched, that the dietary laws (as well as any other Old Testament laws of a ceremonial or civil nature) have indeed been suspended and are no longer obligatory. From such an orientation it is much easier to find the traditional interpretation reasonable. This may in fact be the only real motivation to accept such a view: it certainly is convenient. A Fact The key text used to support this position is: "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." (vs 15) From this statement we may reasonably conclude that God had cleansed at least some of the animals in the sheet, such that these animals were fit for Peter to eat. Otherwise, if we do not conclude this, the entire context is nonsensical: we cannot simply gloss over the whole narrative, acting as if God has not called some of the animals in the sheet fit to eat. He certainly did so. Peter was calling some of the animals "common," ceremonially unclean, and God was correcting him for making this statement. There is no other legitimate way to read the text. Whether in a vision or no, God was putting His approval on our consuming at least one of the animals present in the sheet. This is a given. What will we do with it? An Assumption In order to hold to the traditional view with certainty based on this text it is
necessary to presume that all of the animals in the sheet were forbidden in the dietary laws found in Leviticus. While it is clear that there were such animals present, it is not necessarily given that all
of the animals present in the sheet were biblically unclean: this must be assumed. While a superficial reading of the text may suggest that such an assuption is reasonable, a careful look at the the immediate and general context reveals that it may not be.
If this assumption is correct, then the traditional view is necessarily implied: it is a logical conclusion. If one starts with the assumption that all of the animals in the sheet are unclean then it follows that
God has annulled some part, if not all, of the Mosaic dietary laws. However, if this assumption is incorrect, and one or more of the animals in the sheet were not forbidden by ceremonial dietary law, then holding the traditional
view of the text may be shown to be both arbitrary and unreasonable due to numerous inherent difficulties. Problems With The Traditional View Peter Never Held It Perhaps the most obvious difficulty with making such an assumption, and taking the traditional view as a consequence, is that there is no indication that Peter, the one initially receiving, interpreting and reporting the vision, ever held such a view: Peter never perceived that God had changed or annulled the dietary laws. God's purpose in giving the revelation to Peter, to free him from a belief that hindered his witness of Messiah outside the Jewish community, was certainly achieved. Yet throughout this major course correction in his life, Peter never suggested to anyone that he had any sense God was repealing or annulling any of the Law. Peter did not understand this to be the meaning or intent of the vision, or even a corollary to be seen in it. Neither is there any indication that any of the other Apostles ever interpreted the vision in this manner. It appears that, after hearing of the vision, all of the early Jewish believers continued keeping the entire Mosaic Law, and they did so for their entire lives. (Acts 21:20-24) God Approves Eating Detestable Things? We have then a reasonable motivation to reconsider the implications of this traditional view of the text, and its inherent assumption, a bit more carefully. It is, in fact, a claim that all animals which God had once told His people to abstain from with abhorrence (Lev 11:20) are now to be freely consumed. Now, unless one is also willing to take a step further, and either accept the idea that there has also been a very substantial and physical change in the nature of the unclean animals themselves, or accept the idea that the dietary prohibitions were completely and entirely arbitrary -- that there was actually no physical benefit in observing them -- then the traditional view is also a claim that God is saying: "I now approve the consumption of detestable things." Our suspicion should be roused in this: something appears to be amiss. What Was Cleansed and When Is Unclear Further, we may observe that God has never, even in this vision, clearly stated such a thing, that He has changed or repealed any of the dietary laws, such that it is now permissible to eat these kinds of animals. This text merely states that God has, at some point, cleansed certain animals for the purpose of eating. When this cleansing occurred we are not told, and nothing in the text indicates that God had recently cleansed any more animals for eating, or that there was any actual change in the Law. Further, we don't know which animals in the mix were cleansed, or how to identify them. The text does not name any specific species of animal at all, nor does it state that all of the animals in the sheet were cleansed. Further, as we shall see, the wording of the text actually seems to imply that only some of the animals in the sheet were cleansed. Yet, in order to apply the text in any practical manner while holding the traditional view, we must assume that ALL unclean animals have been cleansed, and this is, again, an assumption that appears to violate the remaining context. God's Actions Appear Arbitrary and Confusing It is clear that Peter did not think that any of the animals in the sheet were fit to eat, and that he remained ignorant of any change in the dietary laws. However, God's treatment of Peter, in commanding him to eat what he thought was forbidden, was done in such a manner as to both rebuke Peter and implicate him of inappropriate behavior as he refused to obey God's command. God repeatedly and directly forbade Peter to continue what he was doing: this is both confrontational and corrective behavior on God's part. Yet without clear revelation prior to this time that God's standards had changed, God's actions seem very unreasonable. There is no other text in scripture to which we might point as an example, where God rebuked what was at one time godly behavior, treating it as inappropriate, without first explaining Himself very clearly. This seems, on closer inspection, very inconsistent and confusing. God Tempting Peter to Sin? If every single animal in the sheet is biblically unclean, God is
then commanding Peter to do something which God has previously told him not to do, and which Peter himself would be very tempted to do in his natural flesh. This then is an entirely unique context: Peter is ravenously hungry, and
God is telling Peter to go ahead and satiate himself by violating His own direct commands, clearly revealed in Scripture. God is commanding Peter to consume that which he has obediently trained himself for a lifetime to abstain
from with abhorrence. What was once defined as ungodly by clear revelation from God is now being demanded of Peter by God. If this is not tempting someone to sin, then what is?
If anything is contrary to the nature of God, then such a temptation is. Contrary to Divine Nature In fact, the very idea that God would ever do such a thing… change His ways or His laws, that He would ever condone that which He had previously and formally and clearly forbidden as an
abomination, is completely foreign to the entire context of the Bible, and contradicts it in many places. Such a view can only be brought to the holy text of scripture as a presupposition, it cannot actually be found in it. Jesus teaching on this topic was quite clear: these dietary laws, as part of the entire body of the Mosaic Law, were of a permanent, nature – as permanent as earth and heaven; anyone violating them would be
considered "least in the kingdom." (Matt 5:17-19) It is clear that Jesus never encouraged anyone to do so. Find it strange then that we should accept, as a foundational construct of Christianity, something that
Jesus Christ never actually taught, and that none of His twelve disciples EVER actually believed. This is no light thing; it must be pondered very carefully. Injustice to Context Finally, the traditional view does not do any real justice to the remaining context, for it does not provide any
reasonable motivation for Peter's ultimate conclusion that he should not call any man common or unclean. Other than the mere juxtaposition of these concepts in the narrative, where is the formal bridge from dietary laws to
interacting with supposedly unclean people? Ceremonial uncleanness is entirely unrelated to touching living animals of any kind, and any uncleanness acquired from an unclean animal may not be transferred to others merely by
physical contact. How then is eating an unclean animal related to being in Gentile company? God is certainly not abolishing the very concept of unclean people, for He mentions unclean people after this time. (1 Cor 7:14, Eph 5:3-5)
The above difficulties with the traditional interpretation appear insurmountable, implying that the traditional approach to the text is unreasonable. However, we shall see that a presumption that all the animals in
the sheet were unclean, which is required in order to imply the traditional view from the text, is at best an argument from silence. Further, there does happen to be strong evidence in the text to support the presence of clean
animals in the mix. This concept helps to integrate the event with the entire biblical and historical context quite nicely and avoids the above difficulties. General Context To get a proper understanding of the passage it is important to look carefully at the entire context, giving particular attention to detail which has not yet been incorporated into our overall understanding of the text. Purpose of the Vision Notice first that the extended context involves God's desire for Peter in particular, and for Jewish believers in general, to reach out to Gentiles with the Gospel. God has clearly told them to do so: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations." (Mt 28:19) However, at this time the Jewish believers are all being hindered by something; none of the Jewish Christians are reaching out to Gentiles. "Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only." (Ac 11:19) What was it that was orienting the early Jewish Christian mindset in this way? The answer is clearly stated in the immediate context, and must be fully understood in order to interpret the passage correctly. The Underlying Problem Peter openly states the cause of this behavior later in the story,
explaining what it was that he had been believing which had been hindering his witness to Gentiles: "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." (vs 28a)
Jewish people commonly believed that Gentiles could not be right with God without first converting to Judaism, that Gentiles were defiled and unclean by definition, and that God therefore forbad Jews from interacting with them.
Where did they get this concept? One might presume from Peter's statement that the Jews got this thinking from Scripture itself because he calls such behavior unlawful, but such is not the case. Search the
scripture: there is no command anywhere in the Bible suggesting that God's people should avoid interacting with those outside the kingdom, or that only Jews can be in a right relationship with God. God never intended for His people
to live in isolation from the world; rather, God intended for them to be a witness to it. This has been true from the beginning of time. Yet Peter had accepted and obeyed traditional Jewish teaching on this point
and his thinking about it was being corrected here: "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (vs 28b) The key question to ask is this: What was it about the vision which suggested this new
understanding to Peter? This is, perhaps, a more difficult question, and it requires some basic understanding of Jewish culture and tradition. A careful look at the both the immediate and extended context of scripture is helpful.
Immediate Context Significance of the Sheet To help us understand this it is important to notice that the animals in the vision were being transported in a sheet that was suspended by four corners, not on a board or a hard flat surface. The significance of this mode of transportation is that it virtually guaranteed that the animals were touching one another. The nature of a sheet would be such that it would be flexible and give way under the weight of any object placed upon it. Objects in the sheet would tend to gravitate toward the lowest point in the sheet, toward the center. In such a state living animals would be in constant movement and would tend to bunch up together in the center, stumbling and crawling over each other in a writhing, chaotic mass. In viewing such a scene, it would have appeared to Peter that any animal in the sheet had been in regular contact with most all of the other animals in the sheet. This is important. A Wide Variety of Animals Note also that the text states (vs 12) there were "all manner of fourfooted beasts" in the sheet, as well as "wild beasts." This wording indicates that the mix included many types of domesticated animals (as distinct from "wild" beasts), many of which might have been biblically clean, and therefore appropriate for Peter to eat. Further, since clean/unclean was a primary classification, or kind of animal, (Gen 7:2,8, 8:20, etc.) it would be unreasonable to describe a mix including only unclean animals as having "all manner" of animals, for a major kind ("manner") of animal, a clean animal, would not have been present. Thus it does not appear unreasonable to assume that there was at least one clean animal in the mix that would have been biblical for Peter to eat, an animal that God had "cleansed" for eating. When God Cleansed Before the Flood God gave animals to Man to eat just after the Great Flood. (Gen 9:3) Prior to this time only plants were eaten. And, just as Man had to figure out which plants were appropriate to
eat and how to eat them, he also had to figure out which animals were fit to eat and how to eat them. Now, prior to the flood, it is evident that Man had already identified certain animals as clean
even though they were not to be eaten until after the flood. (Gen 7:2) God presumed this understanding by instructing Noah to take two of each animal species upon the ark, with the exception of these clean
animals, which He told Noah to take by sevens. (Gen 7:2) This implies that Noah had a clear understanding of the difference between clean and unclean animals, and that he was able to clearly identify which were the clean animals. This is very significant.
After the Flood After the Flood, when God gave Man animals to eat, it
should have been very evident to Noah which animals God intended for him to consume. There was a very big hint in their numbers. Had Noah or his family eaten any of the unclean animals shortly after the Flood, that species would
not have been able to reproduce and would have become extinct, which was clearly contrary to God's intention. Even if the family had waited until the unclean animals had produced some offspring, taking any of the offspring could
have severely limited, and perhaps even crippled their reproductive potential. Noting that God had clearly provided on the ark a spare
of each kind of clean animal and of each kind of bird, upon his departure from the ark Noah was quickly moved to offer up an enormous sacrifice – one of every kind of bird and one of every kind of clean animal (Gen 9:20), evidently leaving three distinct living pair of each kind of clean animal and fowl to reproduce. With this kind of start, the clean animals should have been multiplying in exponentially greater numbers after the flood than their unclean counterparts: a clear indication of which kind of animals God intended for people to eat.
Progressive Revelation at Sinai As God progressively revealed more and
more of His ways to mankind over time, He formalized this distinction between clean and unclean animals at Sinai, as well as formally introducing the relevant prohibition, forbidding the eating of unclean animals. (Lev 11) Yet this
was evidently a mere formalization of what God had clearly revealed to Man prior to the Flood, not the introduction of an entirely new concept. Therefore, from this text in Acts alone, it need not be presumed that God had made any
changes to the dietary laws at the time of Peter's vision due to the fact that the text mentions God cleansing
certain animals for the purpose of eating. The reference need not be of a New Testament event: it could be understood that God's cleansing of certain animals to eat occurred very early in history; it need not be a new concept to Peter, it could be something very old, a concept with which he was already familiar.
Peter's Understanding Types of Clean and Unclean Now Peter, being an instructed Jew, was fully aware of God's dietary laws, and laws relating generally to ceremonial uncleanness, and he carefully observed these laws along with all of his Jewish brethren. Peter also knew that there are really two distinct types of "clean\unclean" things described in God's Law. There are things that are intrinsically unclean, which are always unclean by nature, such as unclean animals. He also understood that there is no ritual or ceremony which can make such things clean: they are unclean by definition. (Lev 11) There are also ceremonially unclean things, which become unclean by some means and may be made clean again by the passing of time and/or a certain ritual. For example, a new mother was considered (ceremonially) unclean and become clean again after a certain number of days and by the offering of a given sacrifice. (Lev 12) A Choice In Two Greek Terms Further, it is evident from the text that the sheet included much, much more food than Peter could have eaten at the time to satisfy his hunger, implying that there was an inherent design in the event for Peter to choose something: Peter was supposed to make a choice among the animals, selecting one of them (or at most a few small animals) to kill and eat. In considering his options, Peter used two words to describe the kinds of animals he observed in the sheet: koinos (KJV "common") and akathartos (KJV "unclean"). The first of these words, koinos, was sometimes translated defiled, (e.g. Matt 7:2) describing something that was at one point ceremonially clean and which had become ceremonially unclean. The second term, akathartos, was often used to describe intrinsically unclean things, like "unclean spirits" (i.e. demons/devils, Matt 10:1, etc.), which could not be ritually cleansed. It therefore appears that Peter recognized that there were two different options available to him to choose from: animals that were intrinsically unclean (which Levitical law forbade him to eat) and other animals in the sheet that had become, at least in Peter's mind, "contaminated" by touching other animals in the sheet, but which he would have considered clean and fit to eat had they not become contaminated. Peter's use of both of these words to describe the animals in the sheet provides further evidence that there were some clean animals in the sheet, which Peter presumed to be ceremonially unclean due to their contact with the unclean animals. Observations God's Focus on Ceremonial Uncleanness It is interesting to note here that God, in response, appears to contradict Peter only in his description of what Peter thought were the ceremonially unclean animals: "What God hath
cleansed (katharizo or made intrinsically clean), that call not thou common (koinoo or ceremonially unclean)." (vs 15) God was saying, "I have made some of these animals clean so that you can eat them.
Stop saying that they are unclean!" It is significant that God does not resist Peter's description of the unclean animals, only his refusal to eat any of what Peter thought were the common, or ceremonially unclean ones. It is also very instructive to note that there is no part of God's Law (the Torah) indicating that intrinsic uncleanness may be transferred. In particular, according to Torah, a clean animal does not become
unclean by contacting an unclean animal. However, the Jews had added many laws (called Oral Torah) to Torah, including laws describing how intrinsic uncleanness could be transferred through physical contact. These kinds of
laws persist in the Jewish kosher laws unto the present day, as anyone familiar with them may testify. Peter's Actions Consistent with Oral Torah Now, Peter refused to eat any of the animals in the sheet, including any of the clean animals which (it may now be reasonably proposed) were present. This implies that Peter was resisting God's commandment to eat at least one of the animals based on a man-made law which the Jewish rabbis had added to Torah. Peter, observing a lamb and a pig in the sheet, would have refused to eat the lamb because it had come in contact with the pig. He would have immediately thought, based on Oral Torah, that the lamb was ceremonially unclean due to this contact. As Peter resisted eating the lamb for this reason, as any observant Jew would have done at the time, he was evidently surprised to repeatedly encounter God's firm and consistent rebuke. It must have made him pause and reconsider what he had been taught. Peter's Actions Inconsistent with Torah In the vision, God consistently treated Peter in a manner
that suggests Peter should have known better than to resist God's command to eat one of the clean animals. God repeatedly corrected Peter for his actions, telling him to stop resisting Him, without explaining why the action was
wrong. God was basically claiming that at least one of the animals in the sheet was in fact intrinsically clean (katharizo), pointing it out to Peter as if Peter should have already known this. This was a claim on God's part
that Peter's belief about at least one of the animals in the sheet was incorrect, and that Peter already had revelation from God to equip him to discern this fact. It was therefore inappropriate for Peter to resist God's clear
instruction to him based on Oral Torah: Peter should have known better and God treated him that way. All of the disciples should have known from their Master's teaching not to implicitly obey Oral Torah, especially
when it contradicted God's Word. Jesus clearly taught that Oral Torah was not binding when it contradicted Torah, and gave many examples where it did. (Matt 15:3-6) Peter, recalling this in the face of God's consistent rebukes
during the vision, evidently saw an inconsistency that moved him to question Oral Torah in its teachings regarding Jewish interaction with non-Jews. (It is a fact that if intrinsic uncleanness can be transferred through physical
contact then the entire Levitical system is pointless: flies are intrinsically unclean and it can never be shown in a typical outdoor environment that any object has never had a fly land upon it.) Whatever it was that Peter did
see, he eventually concluded that his behavior had been inappropriate and that that he should no longer presume that anyone was "common or unclean" simply because of their nationality. God's motivation for confronting
Peter in this manner remains open: Why was God going after Peter in this manner, as Gentiles were approaching the house wanting to speak with him? What is the clear connection between the dietary laws and Jewish evangelism? The Connection Since there is no law in the Bible indicating that a Jew should not company with a Gentile, or go into his house, this "unlawful" concept must therefore have been a reference to Oral Torah. Jewish Rabbis had derived from the dietary laws, and from other laws defining ceremonial uncleanness, their own laws forbidding Jews to interact with non-Jews, to enter their houses or to company with them. Further, they insisted that only Jews could be in the family of God and that for anyone to be right with God they must first convert to Judaism. They also taught that their man-made laws and traditions were equivalent to, or even superseded scripture, and most all of the early Jews were of this mindset. It was to such laws that Peter referred in his statement to Cornelius, "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." (vs 28) God was exposing to Peter, and through this experience to the entire Jewish community, the inconsistency of Oral Torah in the basic constructs used to derive these laws, and therefore the inconsistency and inappropriateness of his respect for them in light of God's command to take the Gospel to the nations. Apostolic Confrontation and Conclusion This step
immediately set Peter at odds with his Jewish brothers, who shortly afterwards confronted him for his actions. "And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when
Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, 'Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.'" (Acts 11:1-3) The Apostles were firm in their understanding that Jews
were to avoid friendships and intimate contact with non-Jews, and they called him to account for his actions. As Peter did so, explaining how Cornelius was obviously converted by faith in Messiah, just like they
all had been, and filled with the Spirit of God, the brothers were at first speechless. "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, 'Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.'" (vs 18, a key text to ponder) It quickly became clear to them all that their respect for Oral Torah and Jewish tradition was misplaced here, and that conversion to Judaism was not necessary for salvation. This meant that the artificial man-made laws dividing Jew and Gentile were to be torn down, and that the kingdom of God was to include God's elect from all nations, Jews and Gentiles alike, side by side. This was a critical step for the early Church, and through it God opened the gates of salvation to the world.
A More Reasonable Interpretation It may be
easily understood in this context that Peter was describing certain of the clean animals in the sheet as ceremonially defiled, based on Oral Torah, due to contact with the other intrinsically unclean animals in the sheet. In
response, God corrected Peter by repeatedly telling him that the intrinsically clean animals were not defiled by touching the other animals and that Peter was to stop saying that these clean animals were defiled, unfit to eat. God
was telling Peter that the Oral Torah was inconsistent here and that it should not be observed. Getting this message through to Peter was critical because, at the time of the vision, as noted above, it appears that
most all of the early Jewish Christians felt as Peter did, that they should not interact with Gentiles, and therefore they preached only to Jews. (Acts 11:19) This evidently came from a hesitation to violate Oral Torah, Jewish
tradition, and was hindering the Great Commission to take the Gospel to all nations. Peter's meditation on God's actions in the vision evidently resulted in his growing awareness that Oral Torah was leading the
Church to violate a clear command of God: "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Peter was finally beginning to understand that he was not bound by Oral Torah, and that he should not observe it when
it contradicted the spirit of Torah or any of Jesus' direct commandments. God was supernaturally intervening in Peter's life to help him and the early Jewish Church to make a major course correction: to break their hesitation to
interact with Gentiles by challenging their reverence for Oral Torah, because it violated something God had already clearly told them to do (take the gospel to the nations). This was a huge step for any observant Jew of that day. As the men sent from Cornelius approached, Peter's reluctance to be near them, fearing that they were intrinsically unclean because they were non-Jewish, and that this uncleanness would be transferred to him by his
association with them, must have constantly brought to mind the vision, the mix of clean and unclean animals stumbling over each other, and of God's repeated statement: "What God has cleansed, that call not thou common." As God
cleansed the hearts of Cornelius and his friends through faith in Messiah, giving them the Holy Spirit even though they had not converted to Judaism, Peter understood that he was to receive them as family, just like he would any
non-Jew. This was a very difficult concept for any Jew to grasp at the time, and it would take many years and much study to help them all to see it clearly. Paul would do most of the work, but this first step with
Peter, as a pillar of the early Church, was indeed a most significant one. Such was Peter's understanding of the vision -- not that God had changed His Laws, but that He wanted His people to stop violating the
Spirit of His Law based on man-made tradition. This message was extended and repeated many times over, beginning with Christ Himself and continuing through Peter and Paul as the early Church grew. Contending with legalism and the
constant insistence that Gentiles must convert to Judaism in order to be saved was a constant struggle for decades. (Acts 15) However, at no time during this crisis was there ever any hint that God's Laws were no longer binding, or
that they were not universal – applicable to Gentiles as well as Jews. The only laws renounced were man-made, and found only in Jewish tradition, the Oral Torah. Conclusion The meaning of Peter's vision on the rooftop is consistently used to teach believers that the dietary laws found in the Old Testament are no longer binding for Christians. However, it is clear from a careful analysis of the whole context that such an interpretation has many apparently insurmountable difficulties. It requires making an assumption that all of the animals in the sheet were forbidden in the dietary laws. However, one need not presume this: it is quite possible that there were clean animals present which were lawful for Peter to eat. This may be reasonably inferred from details present in the context, providing for a much more reasonable approach that fits more consistently and intelligently with the overall historical and biblical context. It permits one to maintain the validity of the dietary laws and provides a clear relationship between the details of the vision and the ultimate affect that it had on Peter and the Apostles. At the very least, the text is found to lack any conclusive support for the abolishing of any of God's Laws, and it should therefore not be exploited for this end. home |
||||