A sheet full of treif

Acts 10:1 - 11:18 covers the story of Peter's thrice-repeated vision of the sheet full of unclean animals and its interpretation. This exegesis concludes that the meaning of the vision is only about Gentiles - that they are not to be regarded as unclean by Jewish believers - and that it has nothing to do with them eating unclean foods or with the Law of Moses supposedly being terminated. It should, therefore, not be used to substantiate the claim that the Law is obsolete since it does not address that topic. One of the demands of good hermeneutics is to see how one's exegesis fits in with the overall sweep of scripture but I am going to restrict the discussion to the selected passage because I'm trying to show that Acts 10:1 - 11:18 on its own does not support the claim that the Law is done away with.

You can read through this article briefly and get the gist of what I am saying, but I suggest you set aside a couple of hours to do it thoroughly and resolve all the issues. This study requires absolute honesty of interpretation. I encourage you to put aside your own theology and join me in looking simply at what the text says. If you come with the idea that you already know what the story is about before studying it, you may fall into the trap of eisegesis - reading into the text what you think (and perhaps want) it to say, instead of exegesis - reading the meaning out of the text.

To start, read the entire passage. The story describes:

• Peter’s visions of the sheet during his stay with “Simon the tanner” in Joppa, 
• his mission and preaching to Gentiles in Caesarea (Cornelius and his household), 
• their reception of the gospel and baptism in Spirit and water, and 
• Peter’s defence of his actions to believers in Jerusalem leading to the revelation of God’s inclusion of the Gentiles in his Kingdom.

I say "visions" (plural) because Peter saw the same vision three times over. Repetition in the Bible is a technique to emphasise a message strongly, and a triple declaration is the strongest possible statement. In Isaiah and Revelation, for example, God is praised with the cry, "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD God Almighty!" (Revelation 4:8, almost verbatim in Isaiah 6:3) By saying "holy" three times in succession, the creatures are emphatically stating that God could not be more holy. So Peter's triple vision was something of great importance.

The narrative is a crucial part in the historical spread of the gospel (hence, the Kingdom) to every nation. First it went from Jews alone to semi-Jews (outcast Samaritan “half-breeds”) in Acts 8 and then, in the same chapter, to the Ethiopian eunuch. (He was either a proselyte to Judaism or a God-fearer, but in either case unable to enter the Temple due to his emasculation, Deuteronomy 23:1). In Acts 10, the gospel is preached to God-fearers (Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel together with the Jews) and by Acts 11 it was being presented to all Gentiles - even pagans! Peter's vision of the sheet was pivotal to this development. In Acts 15:14, Jacob ("James") affirms to the Jerusalem Council Peter's claim that Israel itself was selected by God "from among the Gentiles". The vision Peter saw was God's directive to the chief apostle to open wide the door to the Gentiles, and it changed the course of history forever.


So far so good. But this is where I depart from the consensus. I want to elicit the meaning of the vision directly from the text, without reading anything more into it. The vision included the voice which said, "What God has made clean, do not call common" (Acts 10:15). So the question to be answered is this: what was it that God had made clean? Was it treif (non-kosher, or ritually unclean, food) or was it the Gentiles? Or both? The scripture tells us that even "Peter was doubting within himself what the vision which he saw might be..." (Acts 10:17) and pondering its meaning (Acts 10:19) when he was instructed by the Spirit to go with the messengers from Cornelius. The next verse (Acts 10:20) provides the first clue to solve the question of what the vision meant; the Spirit said to Peter, "'... go down and go with them, not discriminating, because I have sent them.'" Peter was explicitly instructed by the Holy Spirit not to discriminate against the messengers from Cornelius. Why would he have discriminated against them? Because they were Gentiles. Cornelius was a Roman centurion (Acts 10:1), and his messengers were "two of his servants and a devout soldier" (Acts 10:7). So, from the outset, we have confirmation that the vision is talking about Gentiles at least. We shall have to see if it is meant to refer to treif also.

Peter was a devout, Torah-abiding Jew who, by in his own words, had never eaten "'never eaten anything that is common or unclean.'" (Acts 10:14). Yet Acts 10:28-29 tells us,

And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me."

Peter claims that it is unlawful for Jews to associate with Gentiles. Yet there is nothing written in the Law of Moses against associating with, or visiting, Gentiles. So what law was Peter referring to? He could only have been speaking of the Oral Law. That is, rules set by the Israel's religious leaders to keep Jews from possibly breaking the Mosaic (written) Law.

Then Peter says something that I cannot stress it strongly enough: "'God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.'" What did God show Peter through the vision? It was surely that Gentiles are not to be regarded as unclean. Peter says nothing about God speaking of unclean food. So we have confirmation that the vision is about Gentiles, not food.

Thus Peter's own uncertainty on the meaning of the vision (Acts 10:17, 19) was resolved by Acts 10:20 and 28. This is greatly reinforced by Acts 10:34-36:

So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all),

Verses 34-35 make it clear yet again that the vision was about Gentiles, not food. And verse 36 emphasizes that Jesus Christ is Lord of all (that is, of all nations, not only Israel); it has nothing to do with food and everything to do with the Gentiles.

This interpretation is further supported by God pouring out his Spirit upon the Gentiles who were listening receptively to the gospel in Acts 10:44. Thus God confirms Peter's interpretation of the vision is right: the Gentiles are not to be regarded unclean or common; it is not about food. Not a word has been spoken about unclean food since verse 16.

A basic principle of hermeneutics is that a passage must be interpreted according to its genre. That is, interpret a parable as a parable, not an apocalypse. You don't interpret poetry like a commandment, nor a prophecy as though it were a song. Peter had a vision. Jeremiah's vision of the boiling cauldron had nothing to do with food. Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones had nothing to do with bones. Zechariah's vision of the woman in the basket had nothing to do with women or baskets. Amos' vision of summer fruit had to do with neither summer nor fruit. And Peter's vision of the sheet had nothing to do with unclean food any more than it did with sheets! The treif in the vision was a metaphor, and nothing more. We have already seen repeatedly that it was a metaphor for the Gentiles who were regarded by Jews as ritually unclean, like treif.

By Peter's vision God did not at all abrogate the Law. Those who read the passage to mean that Jewish believers are now free (and expected) to eat unclean foods - and hence that the Law is done away with - are reading their theology into the text (eisegesis). As I have shown, the interpretation of the vision is contained in the narrative itself.

But what about the Paul's confrontation with Peter (Cephas) described in Galatians 2:11 and following? I'm not about to respond to that question here, except to give a pointer: Paul's accusation against Peter was not that he was eating kosher, it was that he was treating the Gentiles as unclean by not eating with them. Peter could easily have been eating kosher food alongside his new Gentile brethren whilst they ate non-kosher food. As an analogue, a vegetarian may freely eat with someone non-vegetarian. There was no biblical Law against that, only Oral Law - rules which were applied over and above the written commandments for Jews. Hence God teaching Peter to accept Gentiles as "clean" indicates that God saw part of the Oral Law as being inappropriate, a wrong application of the written Law (Torah) resulting from a wrong interpretation of it.

You may still be doubting my interpretation of the vision because some translations of Acts 11:12 say that Peter was to make "no distinction" between Jews and Gentiles. Since it is observance of the Law that distinguishes the two, how can the Law still be valid if there is now "no distinction"? The answer is that linguistically "no distinction" is a permissible interpretation (in terms of its semantic range), but hermeneutically it is not permissible. Those same translations which say "no distinction" in Acts 11:12 - the ASV, RSV, MKJV, ESV and NET - do not use the word "distinction" in Acts 10:20, which 11:12 is quoting! This appears to be a classic case of eisegesis where the translators have projected their theology onto the text and thus translated it to fit their theology. I discussed this in some detail in an earlier article.
The pericope ends with Peter's defence of having preached to the Gentiles and baptising them, whereupon his hearers (the circumcision party in Jerusalem, and probably other apostles and believers there, Acts 11:1-2) marvelled:

When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." (Acts 11:18)

We note that there is still no reference to unclean foods or to the Law being done away with - neither by Luke (the author) nor by Peter, nor by any member of his opponents in the circumcision party. Peter didn't teach them that the Law is obsolete. Nor did he say anything about clean or unclean foods. None of those hearing Peter's case said, "Oh well, I guess we can eat pork now." It was unthinkable to them.

Let me present an analogy. The Law was given by God to the Children of Israel at Sinai on the occasion of what became known as the very first Pentecost (Shavuot). It was a wedding of Israel to God, and Jews today still celebrate the Law every Sabbath in their synagogues - something called simcha Torah (rejoicing in the Law). The Spirit was given by God to his people in Jerusalem also on the occasion of Pentecost/ Shavuot, a deposit and guarantee of the great Wedding of the Lamb - like an engagement ring. Now consider this: the idea of God dispensing with the Law for Israel would be as shocking to them as him telling Christians that we don't need his Spirit any longer. And to think that the book of Acts nowhere even mentions discussions amongst the Jews of this supposed momentous event! It is simply absurd to think that this would not be explicitly recorded in the New Covenant scriptures (NT). On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence in Acts that Jewish believers assumed that the Law was for keeps, and that they were to continue observing it. But that is for another blog post.

Finally, before anyone angrily responds by saying that I've overlooked many other scriptures (especially Galatians 2-5) regarding "the end of the Law", let me reiterate my point: There is nothing in this passage (Acts 10:1-11:18) to support the argument that the Law is done away with, nor that Peter's vision was an injunction by God to forsake the commandment to avoid eating unclean foods. Again and again we saw confirmations that the vision was really about Gentiles not being unclean. On the other hand, I am not saying that this passage indicates that dietary laws and the Mosaic Law in general are still applicable to Jews in the New Covenant. I don't think the passage (particularly the vision) addresses the issue of Law at all. That is another issue which will have to be evaluated based on other scriptures; this passage simply does not address it.

This post is a first-cut of a formal exegesis paper I'm planning to do on this passage. You'll notice I have not referred to any commentaries. That's because I haven't yet read any on this. My conclusion is based on the text alone which is significant because it suggests either: i) that I'm overlooking something important, or ii) that others have read their theology into this passage. I would really appreciate it if people would politely point out anything I am overlooking - or confirm my argument.