Question about Peter’s Acts 10 vision

[Jaime]

Question: Could Peter have killed and eaten a clean animal from the group of “all manner” of animals in the vision?

Acts 10:9-14 9 ¶ On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 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:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 ¶ But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

 

[TedT]

just another place where all ≠ all...

 

[Jaime]

just another place where all ≠ all...

Could you elaborate?

 

[TedT]

Could you elaborate?

If some were clean then he would not have rejected them all so all kinds in this story only refers to one kind - unclean beasts.

 

[Jaime]

The scripture says ALL manner of animals were on the cloth in the vision. Would that not include BOTH clean and unclean? Why didn’t Peter just kill and eat a clean animal, rather than proclaim to God that he had never eaten anything common or unclean?

We know from scripture what unclean vs clean is. What is “common” ? To a Jew common refers to an otherwise clean animal that is defiled by touch ornproximity of an unclean animal. (All mingled together touching each other etc. Peter didn’t see the common or defiled animals that were otherwise clean as anything but common, no different to him than the unclean animals per the Jewish traditions of men. Jesus said do not call what God has created clean common or unclean by touch or proximity. (Like they did with the Gentiles apparently due to traditions of men in their history).

God of course used this story to teach Peter and the Jews a lesson about their wrong traditions concerning their interaction with Gentiles!! The object lesson was not really about food at all! Similar to Jesus’ admonition of the Pharisee and their hand washing rules in Mark 7 was not about food either, even though some translators added the paranthetical additional phrase in Mark 7:19 (thus Jesus declared all food clean). mark 7 was about the handwashing tradition, not food.

 

[TedT]

Exactly - his answer forces us to conclude all≠all....

Such things can be important in such verses where all = all but are read all≠all, like in Job 38:7 ... When the morning stars sang together, and ALL the sons of God shouted for joy.

 

[Jaime]

Exactly - his answer forces us to conclude all≠all....

Such things can be important in such verses where all = all but are read all≠all, like in Job 38:7 ... When the morning stars sang together, and ALL the sons of God shouted for joy.

But in any conceivable circumstance, all animals of EVERY kind must include clean and unclean or it is a false statement.

 

[TedT]

Seek the spirit padawan...

 

[Jaime]

Exactly - his answer forces us to conclude all≠all....

Such things can be important in such verses where all = all but are read all≠all, like in Job 38:7 ... When the morning stars sang together, and ALL the sons of God shouted for joy.

What do you THINK it means, if you HAD to answer one way or the other? We have to make such decisions as to the meaning of God’s word sometimes.

I assume Peter thought there were “unclean AND common” animals on the blanket in the vision, based on his response to the vision. I know what unclean animals are, what would “common” animals be in this passage? To me that is they key to this passage’s meaning AND the object lesson for Peter and the Jews.

 

[Jaime]

If some were clean then he would not have rejected them all so all kinds in this story only refers to one kind - unclean beasts.

Mu take is that Peter saw 2 kinds of animals, unclean and common. Common refers to a clean animal being defiled by touching or proximity to unclean animals. This refers to some of the Takonot or oral traditions of the Jewish leaders. There was no such thing in the written Torah. Peter seeing unclean animals and clean animals touching or in proximity with unclean animals, rendered those previously clean animals common or defiled in his mind as they mingled on that blanket or table cloth. God took advantage of this perfect object lesson to show Peter and the Jews that interaction with Gentiles will not defile the Jews or render them common. The written Torah never mentioned such, but the Jew’s Takonot erroneously did. God summed it up by telling Peter to NOT call common or unclean what he created as clean (just because it touched something).

Like Mark 7, this passage REFUTES long held traditions of men in the Jew’s dogma concerning defilement by touch, and not so much about annulling food laws.

Personally, I root for the annulment of the Food Laws because I love pork, especially bacon as well as shrimp, catfish and crawfish. Not so much salamanders and badgers.

 

[Soyeong]

If some were clean then he would not have rejected them all so all kinds in this story only refers to one kind - unclean beasts.

That is unless Peter has reason to reject the clean animals because he consider them to be common. God only rebuked Peter for referring to what He had made clean as being common, but did not rebuke him for referring to what He has made clean as being unclean, so Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correct knew that God's law prohibits eating them, but he incorrect identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision on three different occasions as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status. Yet, this is ignored and Peter's vision is commonly misinterpreted as if God had rebuked Peter for referring to what He has made clean as being unclean and as if the point that God that trying to make to Peter was that we can now eat unclean animals.

 

[TedT]

We have to make such decisions as to the meaning of God’s word sometimes.

Deciding the meaning of things by faith means that we decide by an unproven hope, Heb 11:1. I don't personally think all means all of every kind of food animal but it referred to only the unclean, proscribed animals.

It suits my soul.

 

[Jaime]

Deciding the meaning of things by faith means that we decide by an unproven hope, Heb 11:1. I don't personally think all means all of every kind of food animal but it referred to only the unclean, proscribed animals.

It suits my soul.

Peter’s response is telling to me. He referred to common and unclean animals. Common animals are clean animals that have become levitically defiled by touch or proximity to unclean animals. Therefore it suits my soul that there were common and unclean animals on the cloth in the vision. God was showing Peter to not call common what he created clean, hence the very convincing object lesson to Peter overturning his long held, wrong views about the Gentiles.therefore Peter COULD HAVE killed and ate one of the clean animals he mistook for common. There was no reason for Peter to consider the unclean animals as food. He was simply mistaken because of the Jew’s traditions of men and not the written Torah. God only admonished Peter for calling the animals he created clean as common. God did not address the UNCLEAN ones. Even he didn’t consider them food. The issue was the animals Peter called common. Otherwise the object lesson for Peter concerning his view of Gentiles was meaningless. The Jews didn’t want to be around the gentiles because their WRONG belief that they themselves would be come defiled or common by oroximity or touch of the gentiles. A way over zealous issue for God in the Jews Takonot or traditions of men. Very similar to the admonishment Jesus gave to the Pharisees about their mistaken hand washing traditions in Mark 7.

 

[Jim]

I guess that I am confused. How does any of that change the message that God is giving to Peter? What changes in the message that the gospel was then declared to be extended to the Gentile.?

 

[Jaime]

I guess that I am confused. How does any of that change the message that God is giving to Peter? What changes in the message that the gospel was then declared to be extended to the Gentile.?

The message was God didn’t declare unclean animals clean. He declared that Peter should not call common or defiled what God created as clean. In other words the Jews traditions about food defilement AND the status of the Gentiles was counter to the written Torah. Same as in Mark 7 about handwashings. Neither Acts 10 or Mark 7 was about anulling the food laws. It was about the errors in the Jewish traditions of men. Acts 10 was a perfect object lesson for Peter on how he should regard the Gentiles. It was not a timely annulling of the food laws as claimed by most commentators. The food laws may well have been annulled SOMEWHERE in the Bible, but I don’t think Acts 10 or Mark 7 accomplished that or was intended to.

As I said earlier, I root for the annulment of the food laws since I love pork, shellfish and shrimp, but not so much salamanders and badgers.

 

[Jim]

The message was God didn’t declare unclean animals clean. He declared that Peter should ot call common or defiled what God created as clean. In other words the Jews traditions about food defilement AND the status of the Gentiles was counter to the written Torah. Same as in Mark 7 about handwashings. Neither Acts 10 or Mark 7 was about anulling the food laws. It was about the errors in the Jewish traditions of men. Acts 10 was a oerfect lesson for Peter on how he should regard the Gentiles. It was not a timely annulling of the food laws as claimed by most commentators.

Are you saying that the food laws are still in effect and we should not be eating pork or lobster or.....?

 

[Jaime]

Are you saying that the food laws are still in effect and we should not be eating pork or lobster or.....?

That IS my concern. I want to know where the food laws were overturned, because in my opinion it wasn’t Acts 10 or Mark 7. I would prefer they were overturned, but these two passages don’t do it in my opinion. “Where am I wrong” is my question? I would prefer to be wrong, but I want to be convinced. Not just go with years and years, decades and centuries of traditional belief like the Jews did with their traditions of men that were well intentioned but ultimately counter to God’s intentions.

 

[Red Baker]

@Jamie

I love pork, especially bacon as well as shrimp, catfish and crawfish. Not so much salamanders and badgers.

Well, my brother eat on, all is acceptable as long as we give thanks unto our God for his goodness in providing all things to eat.

1st. Timothy 4:4,5~ "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

Peter did not eat immediately, because he was thinking on the vision as to what it meant:

Acts 10:17~ “Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,”

Once the men came from Cornelius and he went with them, then he understood the purpose of the vision.

Acts 10:34~ “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:”

The dietary laws given to Israel and to Israel only, were given to them temporarily, to teach them a lesson that they were to distinguish between clean and unclean, as far as them separating themselves from the unclean Gentiles, but ONCE God's eternal purposes were being unfolded before their eyes of God visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name sake, those dietary laws given to Israel had serve their purposes and all creatures are good for God's elect to eat. Meat of themselves of all creatures are NOT unclean, or will defiled us spiritually speaking, yet God choose to use such animals as a means of teaching Israel to be NOT like the Gentiles nations.

Brother Jaime, have a BLT on me brother for breakfast~or a meat lovers pizza, while you watch Texas Tech beat Oregon today. I'm pulling for them because of you.

 

[Jim]

That IS my concern. I want to know where the food laws were overturned, because in my opinion it wasn’t Acts 10 or Mark 7. I would prefer they were overturned, but these two passages don’t do it in my opinion. “Where am I wrong” is my question? I would prefer to be wrong, but I want to be convinced. Not just go with years and years, decades and centuries of traditional belief like the Jews did with their traditions of men that were well intentioned but ultimately counter to God’s intentions.

How about Mat 15:11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person" ?

 

[Jaime]

How about Mat 15:11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person" ?