Question about Peter’s Acts 10 vision

[Jaime]

Jim, I agree food does not defile us or make us common. That is the lesson in Acts 10. Of course God only considered clean animals as food to go in our mouths, not for reasons of defilement but for health reasons. The Mathew 15 passage was just like Mark 7 parallel passage addressing handwashing traditions, not food. What God considered food never could defile man.

 

[Jaime]

@Jamie

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.

Red, the 1 Tim 4:4-5 passage I believe was addressing the soon coming Catholic doctrinal error of abstaining from meat on Friday and forbidding their priests to marry. Nothing to do with clean, unclean or common animals.

My comments on Acts 10 and Mark 7 stand.

Yes, I will be watching the Red Raiders today with much anticipation.

 

[Red Baker]

@Jaime

My comments on Acts 10 and Mark 7 stand.

I did not attempt to prove anything you said to be wrong, I just gave you my understanding. I'll go back
and address your understanding later. I have children coming over in a few minutes.

RB

 

[Jaime]

@Jaime

I did not attempt to prove anything you said to be wrong, I just gave you my understanding. I'll go back
and address your understanding later. I have children coming over in a few minutes.

RB

Thanks Red. Enjoy the holiday and your family! Keep your Red Raider Guns up!

 

[Jaime]

Jim, the Mathew 15 paaddsge is the parallel passage to Mark 7 talking about the handwashings tradition that the Pharisees adhered to eroneously per Jesus. Nothing to with clean, unclean or common animals. Jesus as a devout Jew would have known what animal was clean, unclean or common. The common designation was the problem. In all these passages especially in Acts 10 with the object lesson for Peter concerning the Gentiles who werr NOT unclean per the written Torah, only the Pharisee’s Takonot or traditions of man. God designated originally what was to be considered food (clean) and what was not food (unclean). The Takonot or trafitions of man concept of common animals OR defiled previously clean animals was an error, resolved in Acts 10, to go along with the erroneous concept of Gentile uncleanness.

 

[Jaime]

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.

The Red Raiders were definitely not ready to play offensively especially. As loyal Texas Tech fans we yearly fall back to our old reliable 4 word mantra:

“Wait Until Next Year!”

 

[Jim]

The Red Raiders were definitely not ready to play offensively especially. As loyal Texas Tech fans we yearly fall back to our old reliable 4 word mantra:

“Wait Until Next Year!”

That was not a fun time if you were rooting for Texas Tech.

 

[Studyman]

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.

It seems evident. The story is about "To make a difference between the unclean and the clean", not according to man's Judgment, but Gods.

 

[Studyman]

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.

And again:

Gen. 2: 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

It's important to consider the whole message of God, in order to understand His message, in my view.

Clearly Peter believed the whole offer was unclean. But isn't God the Judge of such things? Of course God didn't make maggots, slugs or swine's flesh clean, but HE does cleanse men in my understanding, which is what the vision was about in the first place, as it is written. "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you."

Therefore "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common".

It's pretty wonderful actually.

 

[Jaime]

It seems evident. The story is about "To make a difference between the unclean and the clean", not according to man's Judgment, but Gods.

NOT at all, the issue is the word COMMON if you carefully consider Peter’s response. The Greek word koinos which means common or an otherwise clean animal that is levitically defiled by proximity or touch with unclean animals. If animals of EVERY KIND were on the cloth in the vision, God is making clear to Peter there are no “common” people in the sense of defilement. Just as there are NO such thing as common animals or people in the written Torah, just in the Pharisee’s traditions of men which were actually counter to the written Torah the Pharisees claimed they revered. This passage was to erase the error of the gentiles being considered common or defiled by the Pharisees. Nothing overturned concerning the food laws here. The animals and people created CLEAN by God should NOT EVER be called common.

 

[Studyman]

Ot at all, the issue is the word COMMON if you carefully consider Peter’s response. The Greek word koinos which means an otherwise clean animal that is levitically defiled by proximity or touch with unclean animals.

I'm not sure about the philosophy that God's Law or the Levitical Priesthood Laws, teaches that carrying a lamb on a horse makes the Lamb unclean. Or that a Priest riding a horse, makes the Priest "defiled by proximity or touch with unclean animals".

I agree that because of disobedience and refusal to honor God "As God", the religions of the world do not understand God's teaching concerning the discernment between what is clean and what is unclean. I don't think Peter was wrong to discern the animals that were present in his vision, but was wrong in the popular tradition of judging men according to the DNA they were born with.

If animals of EVERY KIND were on the cloth in the vision, God is making clear to Peter there are no “common” people in the sense of defilement.

Eph. 5: 1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

I'm not sure that the message from God to us though Peter's Vision, is that there doesn't exist "koinos: Common, unclean, profane" people in the world God placed us in.

Rather, not to judge men based on the race or bloodline God placed them on this earth with.

As is was written "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Just as there are NO such thing as common animals or people in the written Torah, just in the Pharisee’s traditions of men which were actually counter to the written Torah the Pharisees claimed they revered. This passage was to erase the error of the gentiles being considered common or defiled by the Pharisees.

Absolutely, it was against God's Own Law to do so.

Lev. 19: 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and "thou shalt love him as thyself"; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Nothing overturned concerning the food laws here. The animals and people created CLEAN by God should NOT EVER be called common.

I agree, it wasn't about making maggots, horses or pigs clean for food. But there is a difference between men and animals, in my view. A man can repent and seek to be cleansed once he sees he is unclean. An animal was not born with the capacity to do this, in my understanding.

We should never call someone who has put on the New Man, "which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness", common or unclean.

 

[Jaime]

I'm not sure about the philosophy that God's Law or the Levitical Priesthood Laws, teaches that carrying a lamb on a horse makes the Lamb unclean. Or that a Priest riding a horse, makes the Priest "defiled by proximity or touch with unclean animals".

I agree that because of disobedience and refusal to honor God "As God", the religions of the world do not understand God's teaching concerning the discernment between what is clean and what is unclean. I don't think Peter was wrong to discern the animals that were present in his vision, but was wrong in the popular tradition of judging men according to the DNA they were born with.


Eph. 5: 1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

I'm not sure that the message from God to us though Peter's Vision, is that there doesn't exist "koinos: Common, unclean, profane" people in the world God placed us in.

Rather, not to judge men based on the race or bloodline God placed them on this earth with.

As is was written "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.



Absolutely, it was against God's Own Law to do so.

Lev. 19: 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and "thou shalt love him as thyself"; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.



I agree, it wasn't about making maggots, horses or pigs clean for food. But there is a difference between men and animals, in my view. A man can repent and seek to be cleansed once he sees he is unclean. An animal was not born with the capacity to do this, in my understanding.

We should never call someone who has put on the New Man, "which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness", common or unclean.

You are right. As I said no where in God’s Torah is the concept of common or defiled animals. That was in the Pharisees traditions of men, which Jesus was always railing against. I also checked and there is NO reference in God’s Torah about the Gentiles being defiled. Strange huh? God told Peter to not call anything God created clean as common. This passage has nothing to do with annulling food laws. But it DOES have everything to do with tearing down the traditions of men. Just like Mark 7 and Mathew 15 were. I’m still looking for the scriptures that annulled the Food Laws. Bacon wrapped shrimp and pork chops are at stake!

As to my original question in this thread, Peter COULD HAVE killed and eaten a clean animal on the cloth. He mistook all the clean animals for common or defiled ones because the were touching or close to the jnclean ones. God said don’t call what I created clean as common (defiled). He did not in any way sanction eating the “unclean” ones. One must understand the difference in common and unclean. COMMON was a traditions of men error, that Jesus was ALWAYS against!

 

[Studyman]

You are right. As I said no where in God’s Torah is the concept of common or defiled animals. That was in the Pharisees traditions of men, which Jesus was always railing against. I also checked and there is NO reference in God’s Torah about the Gentiles being defiled. Strange huh? God told Peter to not call anything God created clean as common. This passage has nothing to do with annulling food laws. But it DOES have everything to do with tearing down the traditions of men. Just like Mark 7 and Mathew 15 were. I’m still looking for the scriptures that annulled the Food Laws. Bacon wrapped shrimp and pork chops are at stake!

LOL, it is true that the "other white meat" won't go peaceably. Too much money involved.

As to my original question in this thread, Peter COULD HAVE killed and eaten a clean animal on the cloth. He mistook all the clean animals for common or defiled ones because the were touching or close to the jnclean ones. God said don’t call what I created clean as common (defiled). He did not in any way sanction eating the “unclean” ones. One must understand the difference in common and unclean. COMMON was a traditions of men error, that Jesus was ALWAYS against!

That is an interesting perspective that I never considered or even heard before. I have been surrounded by folks quoting this story as proof that God made snails and swine's flesh clean for food. I didn't realize that there existed a Jewish tradition where a sheep in a pen with a dog or horse made the sheep common or unclean.

I'm always learning.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Jaime]

Studyman, thank you for your contributions to this thread. In my old age I have become unafraid to test my paradigms or the traditions of men I have embraced, no matter how old these traditions are.

 

[Studyman]

These discussions are good for men to engage in, as we all have been influenced by the traditions of this world, in my view.

 

[Jaime]

These discussions are good for men to engage in, as we all have been influenced by the traditions of this world, in my view.

And women as well!

 

[FreeInChrist]

You are right. As I said no where in God’s Torah is the concept of common or defiled animals. That was in the Pharisees traditions of men, which Jesus was always railing against. I also checked and there is NO reference in God’s Torah about the Gentiles being defiled. Strange huh? God told Peter to not call anything God created clean as common. This passage has nothing to do with annulling food laws. But it DOES have everything to do with tearing down the traditions of men. Just like Mark 7 and Mathew 15 were. I’m still looking for the scriptures that annulled the Food Laws. Bacon wrapped shrimp and pork chops are at stake!

As to my original question in this thread, Peter COULD HAVE killed and eaten a clean animal on the cloth. He mistook all the clean animals for common or defiled ones because the were touching or close to the jnclean ones. God said don’t call what I created clean as common (defiled). He did not in any way sanction eating the “unclean” ones. One must understand the difference in common and unclean. COMMON was a traditions of men error, that Jesus was ALWAYS against!

Well done, "grasshopper"... Sorry, 11 degrees out and my brain is fairly frozen.

I cannot improve on what you have said here in your replies but might just make a simple comment or two from a different view for additional clarity....

I fully agree that as you suggested.... The vision in Actes 10 is about people (Gentiles), not food laws

You also are absolutely correct that Scripture distinguishes between:

Unclean (ἀκάθαρτος) is what the Law itself forbade ... see (Lev 11)

Common/defiled (κοινός) is something made impure by human tradition, contact, or association

This distinction did not come about later it actually is biblical.

It is by Peter himself who makes this distinction explicit when he says... Acts 10:14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.”

That alone proves Peter understood them as two different categories.
Remember when God in Acts 10:15 said And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. Notic that God does not say “I have separated the clean from the unclean”
He says He has cleansed what Peter is refusing

That creates a problem for the “only clean animals” view: Clean animals do not need to be ‘cleansed’
Only unclean things require cleansing in biblical categories

If the sheet only represented clean animals defiled by proximity, then God’s response is odd.

And Peter gets it when in Acts 10:28 he says....And he said unto them, 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.

So the vision preserves Torah categories, but Acts 10 shows God relativizing them in Christ.

 

[Jaime]

Thanks for your input FreeInChrist! My only issue is that depending on the version of the Bible as ALWAYS, it says to me what God had MADE OR CREATED clean do not call common (defiled). God long before this had made or created certain animals clean, he is saying here don’t call them defiled. The concept of common or defiled is a tradition of men, NOT of Torah. Same applies with people created by God, (ie the Gentiles).god in no way cleansed anything he previously made or created unclean. Man’s criteria of “common” is anti- Gid’s Torah. At least that is my take. Good discussion.

 

[Jaime]

Peter saw two kinds of animals on the cloth, common and unclean. Unclean was straight forward. God told him in effect that the common animals he oerceived because of proximity or touch on the blanket was an error. Leviticus 11 talked about defilement or commoness if a clean animal touched the carcass of a dead animal. The Jew’s took liberties with that and their traditions expanded that to include simole touch or proximity to living unclean animals Peter witnessesed on the cloth. God is simply reminding Peter to not call common what he had created clean, impuning the Pharisees Traditions of men, NOT overturning over 14 centuries of food laws in this single oassage. And of course correcting the Pharisaic tradition of Gentiles being comsidered common or unclean when God’s Torah never said such. An object lesson Peter finally GOT, but modern Christianity missapplied it seems.

 

[Jaime]

That creates a problem for the “only clean animals” view: Clean animals do not need to be ‘cleansed’
Only unclean things require cleansing in biblical categories

If I were held at gunpoint and told to give a summary of what the lesson was in Acts 10, I would say;

The clean animals of course didn’t need cleansed in any way except in the minds of the Jews including Peter. God had declared which animals were clean and unclean 14 centuries prior to this story. The massive error was the Jewish tradition of men that held thst clean animals could become common or defiled by touch or proximity to unclean animals. God’s Torah stated in Leviticus 11 that living clean animals could be rendered common or defiled by touching a dead animal’s carcass. This story in Acts overturned this Jewish Tradition of Men error as well as another erroneous Jewish Tradition that the Gentiles were common or defiled or even unclean. Peter only saw two types of animals on the cloth the vision.
1. Unclean animals
2. Common animals - clean animals created by God that were rendered defiled by touch or proximity to unclean animals on the cloth.

God basically told Peter don’t call common what I have made or created clean. This wasn’t an obscure overturning of a 1400 year old food law but an object lesson to overturn 2 very persistant errors in the Pharaisic Traditions of men:

1. Clean animals are not rendered common by touch or proximity to unclean animals.

And

2. The Gentiles are not common or unclean and they are OK for Jews to associate with in order to fulfill God’s redemptive plan for ALL of mankind.