(Thus he declared all foods clean) Part 2: Peter’s Vision | Acts 10:13

Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

In ‘Acts of the Apostles’ chapter 10, Peter saw a vision, where different kinds of animals came down from Heaven in a sheet. Then he heard a voice telling him, ‘Rise, kill and eat’, not once but 3 times. However, Peter refused

What does the text say?

Acts 10:14, 16 14But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 16This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

Straight to His face, Peter said “NO” to God Almighty! He clearly was ‘NOT’ going to eat anything unclean”!

This next point is critical; the documented fact is, Peter was inwardly perplexed as to the meaning of this vision. After the vision, Peter is confused, he’s baffled as to its meaning…

What does the text say?

Acts 10:17 Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean

The Word of God states he did NOT know the ‘meaning of the vision’! Yet, mainstream theology has cast aside the ‘apostle Peter’, and interprets the meaning without reading the rest of the discourse? Peter obviously is having issues with an “apparent” change in the Food-Laws. So, shouldn’t we see how all this plays out in the rest of the chapter, before just stopping at verse 13 and ‘(declare all foods are now clean)’? At this point in the discourse, Peter didn’t know what the vision meant… How arrogant is it of us to assume that we could know better than Peter?

From Mark 7:19, mainstream theology teaches that Jesus ‘(declared all foods clean)‘; please read, ‘(Thus he declared all foods clean) Part 1‘. Wasn’t Peter with Jesus during that ‘Mark’ 7 event? If he learned from the Master Himself, that ‘(all foods had been declared clean)’, WHY would he adamantly claim that he had never eaten anything unclean years later, here in Acts 10:14? WHY would he be confused about the meaning of the vision if he already knew that Jesus had ‘(declared all foods clean)??? Didn’t Peter get the memo?

Think logically, not emotionally.

This vision takes place years after the ascension of Jesus, and Peter still believes there are unclean animals that he cannot eat, that he WILL NOT eat! He still believes the Mosaic food Laws are current and valid!

If Jesus did (declare all foods clean) in ‘Mark’ 7, then Peter is contradicting the Son of God.

If Acts 10:14 contradicts Mark 7:19 then we have to throw out both ‘Books’ from the Bible, because Scripture cannot contradict itself.

Today’s mainstream theology teaches that the whole context of the Acts 10 vision is about food, and food alone. If you will allow, the Scriptures alone will prove that the purpose of the vision has NOTHING to do with food.

What no one is being taught in mainstream churches today is that the interpretation of Peter’s vision is given to us, twice. Right there in the dialogue of chapters 10 and 11, the visions interpretation is given to us, twice; and it has NOTHING to do with food.

What does the text say?

Acts 10:28 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.

Acts 11:4-18 4But Peter began and explained it to them in order: 5“I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. 6Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. 7And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8But I said, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’ 10This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. 11And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. 12And the Spirit told me to Go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18When 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.

Shouldn’t we just accept the fact that the Holy Spirit of God knew what He was talking about when He told these disciples this ‘Interpretation?

Peter made it very clear that he had NEVER eaten an unclean animal, and that he had no intentions of eating those unclean animals in the vision. He saw that vision three times and “Behold”, a funny thing happened, three men came looking for him; coincidence???

What does the text say?

Acts 10:13-20 13And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. 17Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean, behold, the men who were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon’s house, stood at the gate 18and called out to ask whether Simon who was called Peter was lodging there. 19And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.”

After the metaphorical word “eat” in the vision, food is never discussed again. Yet, mainstream theology teaches that the whole context of Acts 10 is about food.?.?.

However, after the vision that mentions unclean“, we see that Peter states ‘God showed’ him something that actually refers to unclean“…

What does the text say?

Acts 10:28 …but God has shown me (via the metaphorical vision) that I should not call any person common or unclean.

When Peter finally explains this interpretation of the vision to his brothers in Jerusalem in chapter 11, nothing is mentioned regarding a change in the food Laws, nothing.

Stop and think for second; it would have been FRONT-PAGE news to hear that unclean animals were now considered “food”! If this was the meaning of the vision, why is it never mentioned??? It’s because that wasn’t the meaning of, or purpose of the vision. The purpose of the vision was to get these 1st-Century-believers-in-Jesus to quit following “doctrines/laws of men”.

What does the text say?

Acts 10:28 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.

Nowhere in the Law of God given through Moses do we find this underlined statement above to be true. This was NOT God’s Law, it was man’s law. This was in the oral law of the day, also known today as the Talmud.

The Talmud makes two claims why the Goim (gentiles/nations) are considered unclean: because they themselves were not cleansed on Mount Sinai, and because they eat unclean things.

In ‘Talmud – Abhodah Zarah, 22b’ it says:

  • “Why are the Goim (gentiles/nations) unclean? Because they were not present at Mount Sinai. For when the serpent entered into Eve he infused her with uncleanness. But the Jews were cleansed from this when they stood on Mount Sinai; the Goim, however, who were not on Mount Sinai were not cleansed.”

Likewise, in ‘Talmud –  Schabbath, (145b)’ it says:

  • “Why are the Goim (gentiles/nations) unclean? Because they eat abominable things and animals that crawl on their belly.”

It was a “man-made law” that claimed the gentiles/nations were to be called unclean and to be avoided, not God’s Law.

‘Peter’s Vision’ corrects this false Talmudic understanding; that Jews were not allowed to associate with the gentiles/nations because they were considered to be unclean. The religious leaders routinely put up “fences” around the Law, in order to help insure that it was not violated. This “man-made fence” however, contradicted the Law of Moses.

The vision “showed” Peter that this man-made law was wrong, in order to remove any reluctance he might have had in entering the house of Cornelius.

So, one last time here are both references of the interpretation of the vision given to us straight from the Scriptures  ~

Acts 10:28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful (Talmudic) 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.

Acts 11:18 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.”

Hallelu Yah!

As I mentioned in ‘(Thus he declared all foods clean) Part 1’, there has been a HUGE disconnect in the understanding of God’s Law/Instructions ~

Here is the disconnect: we have been taught for centuries that anything you can shove into your mouth is ‘food’, and that in times past, some of it was considered ‘clean-food’ and some of it was considered ‘unclean-food’. That premise is 100% Scripturally wrong! God NEVER said, ‘pig, crab, dog, snake, vulture, etc. were ‘unclean-food’; He said, they were “unclean animals” and “NOT to be eaten” | Leviticus 11.  In the eyes of Almighty God, the unclean creatures of Leviticus 11 are not, what we today call, “food”.

Mainstream theology has plucked out the single sentence of ‘Acts 10:13’ from the context of the surrounding verses, in order to fit denominational dogma.

We are being lied to! Whether it is deliberate or in ignorance, it’s still deception.

Final Thought: What many have not considered, is that this vision that the LORD gave Peter, is actually a stern ‘Heavenlyreminder’ to finally initiate the instruction He had already given him ~

What does the text say?

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

  • For further study of Paul’s teachings, as well as the original Greek, see the ‘Links’ at the top of this page or blog posts at the bottom. Be like the Bereans, and test Paul’s doctrines to the “Scriptures”; look up for yourself more than 60 of the “forever verses” listed directly below. Please ‘share’ this study. Thank you for your time!

8 thoughts on “(Thus he declared all foods clean) Part 2: Peter’s Vision | Acts 10:13

  1. Here is the disconnect: we have been taught for centuries that anything you can shove into your mouth is ‘food’, and that in times past, some of it was considered ‘clean-food’ and some of it was considered ‘unclean-food’. That premise is 100% Scripturally wrong! God NEVER said, ‘pig, crab, dog, snake, vulture, etc. were ‘unclean-food’; He said, they were “unclean animals” and “NOT food”! | Leviticus 11.

    Do you mean then that unclean animals are still not to be eaten? Why would Jesus say that what we eat can’t make us unclean if He meant that we could not eat it? It can’t make us unclean so why can’t we eat it? (I know His main point was the Levitical hypocrisy behind ceremonial hand washing)I am not suggesting that I would eat certain foods because they gross me out, but many cultures don’t have this uh, picky of a palate as westerners do and so condemning people because of what they eat would be an obstacle to the Good News, if we got hung up on cultural differences. Jesus should be the final arbiter should He not? Isn’t He the essence of the Good News? I just want to understand. I can’t afford to build a kosher kitchen right now.

    Like

    1. Kay,

      Thank you for taking the time to read the studies. I understand where you coming from, and completely empathize.

      I’m more than happy to address any questions you have. However, I respectfully request that you read, ‘(Thus he declared all foods clean) Part 1’, which focuses on Mark 7:19. Please also read, ‘The Law: Fulfilled or Abolished’, ‘Examining the Scriptures’ and ‘The Sabbath: Forever Means Forever’ studies.

      Those focus on most of the questions you posted. I suggest you read each of them a couple of times, and look up all of the Scriptures for yourself.

      Please let me know when you’ve read them, or if you did already. I would be happy to discuss any ongoing concerns you still have.

      May God bless your time in His Word.

      Rich Wheeler

      Like

  2. Good post.

    Acts 10:14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”

    The understanding and doctrine of the day was that a Jew who is in a state of cleanliness would fall to a common state even if he/she ate with a gentile who were deemed unclean. But this doesn’t explain why Peter would look at the CLEAN ANIMALS in the sheet and call them “COMMON”. We know what made a JEW seen as “common”, but not what makes an ANIMAL seen as “common.”

    So why did Peter refer to the ANIMALS, as “common”?

    Like

    1. Dear H Singh:

      Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on the study!

      In a ’vision’ Peter saw animals, crawling creatures and birds, ‘Acts’ 10:12 Wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air (KJV).

      The Greek states it was, ‘all quadrupeds, crawling things, and fowls that fly in the air’. The verse does not state in the Greek nor in the English that the creatures were “clean”, “common” or “unclean”. It does say “panta” in the Greek, which is “all” or “all kinds”, so, in my humble opinion, it is most likely that “all” living land and air animals created by the Almighty were seen by Peter.

      That being said, this occurred in a “vision” to Peter; it was not a literal sheet with every living creature on earth in it. The Master was giving Peter an allegorical lesson.

      But Peter didn’t recognize this as a metaphor at first because when God told him to sacrifice and eat the animals he was confused, and he “refused” to do this, because he knew that many, if not most, of the creatures were not allowed to be eaten.

      Now, as to your question of, “why did Peter refer to the animals as common?”, I don’t know if you were taught that Peter thought some or all of the animals were ‘common’, but if you re-read the verses again you will see that he does not “call” those creatures anything. All Peter said was, “No Master, I have never eaten anything common or unclean”.

      He was stating a fact about “himself”.

      Peter was telling God that he was refusing the command, that he had never disobeyed the food Laws and he was not about to start now!

      What is NEVER considered by the mainstream theological system is that Peter actually ‘REFUSED’’ to obey God. He said, “NO” to God, not once but THREE times, when God (in a vison) told him to do something. This is critical to acknowledge if we are going to understand this passage. As I stated in the study, the mainstream teachers use these verses to “claim” that all animals have been authorized by God to be clean and eatable. This is ludicrous and blasphemy. And this is why Peter was perplexed and confused; he knew God does not change, he knew that it was sin/disobedience to eat some of those animals in that vision, so he was “confused” as to why God Himself would give orders that violated His own commands. BUT, because it was a metaphorical vision, God was NOT commanding Peter to break the Law NOR was He changing His Laws; “I am Yahweh I change not” | Malachi 3:6.

      Peter “KNEW” the food Laws were current and valid when he saw this vision (post-resurrection) because he stated, “I have never eaten anything common or unclean”. By claiming he never ate anything “unclean”, and that he was not going to eat those animals in the vision, he was admitting that he at that point in time was still eating according to the Food Laws in the Law of God given through Moses.

      So, as to your question, I don’t believe Peter was calling any of those animals ‘common’; I think Peter was giving God his explanation as to why he was NOT going to eat “some” of the creatures in the sheet. Animals, in and of themselves, are either ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’. All four-legged animals are either clean or unclean. All crawling things and birds are either clean or unclean.

      Only a ‘clean’ animal can become ‘common’; an ‘unclean’ animal is already worse than common. In order to understand the difference between ‘common’ and ‘unclean’, please read ‘Part 4’ of this series, the Romans 14:4 study.

      Again, thanks for your comment, and I hope these studies can help you in your walk. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

      Respectfully,

      Richard Wheeler

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s