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 It should, therefore, not be used to substantiate the claim that the Law is obsolete since it does not address that topic.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.

What's in a word: διακρίνω (diakrino) - doubt, discrimination or distinction?

Bible translators have a tough job. In fact, in some ways they can never win. There is just no 1:1 mapping between words and phrases of one language and those of another. Bill Mounce, an expert in biblical Greek who was on the Translation Oversight Committee of the ESV, offers a brilliant lecture on this in his free course, Greek for the Rest of Us. (Go to www.teknia.com, create an account and then look for lecture 1b of this course.) Mounce emphasises,

All translations are interpretive

and goes on to explain that all translators are biased. Bible publishers have to decide in advance what kind of translation they are aiming for.

For example, do they want to use gender-inclusive language? If so, they might translate "your sons" as "your sons and daughters", since that appears to be what is meant in many places of the text (because men were representative of the whole population). Today we no longer see men as representing the general population so it may make more sense to say "your sons and daughters" in a modern English translation. Translators constantly have to wrestle with the issue of whether to interpret words or meanings, and we should not be quick to accuse them of deliberately mistranslating certain texts. If they translate those same texts differently, then other people will be clamouring against them. The only way to win is for every Christian to become thoroughly competent in the biblical languages -- and that ain't gonna happen!

With that background in place I do want to raise a challenging question for the translators of several modern translations, the English Standard Version (ESV, 2001) in particular. It seems to me that they have imposed their theology on a word in Acts 11:12, theology that they probably drew out of other parts of the Bible.