Why didn’t Peter just kill and eat a clean animal in Acts 10

[Jaime]

I've always wondered why Peter didn't just eat one of the clean animals on the cloth that came down in his vision on the rooftop in Acts 10?

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.

[Rella]

I've always wondered why Peter didn't just eat one of the clean animals on the cloth that came down in his vision on the rooftop in Acts 10?

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.

Ai~ Peter refused to kill and eat any animal, including clean ones, because he was adhering to Jewish dietary laws that prohibited him from consuming unclean animals. His vision was meant to convey a deeper message about accepting Gentiles, not about changing dietary restrictions.



Search Assist



Peter refused to kill and eat any animal, including clean ones, because he was adhering to Jewish dietary laws that prohibited him from consuming unclean animals. His vision was meant to convey a deeper message about accepting Gentiles, not about changing dietary restrictions.
 theos.org Wikipedia

Peter's Vision in Acts 10
Context of the Vision
In Acts 10, Peter receives a vision from God while he is praying. He sees a sheet filled with various animals, including unclean ones, and is commanded to "kill and eat." However, Peter refuses, stating he has never eaten anything unclean. This refusal highlights his adherence to Jewish dietary laws.

Significance of Peter's Refusal
Peter's refusal to eat unclean animals is significant for several reasons:

Cultural and Religious Identity: As a devout Jew, Peter followed the Mosaic dietary laws, which classified certain animals as unclean. His refusal reflects his commitment to these laws and his identity as a Jew.
Understanding of the Vision: Peter was perplexed by the vision and did not initially understand its meaning. He was not simply being asked to eat a clean animal; the vision was meant to convey a deeper message about accepting Gentiles into the faith.
The Deeper Meaning
The vision ultimately serves as a metaphor. God uses the imagery of unclean animals to teach Peter that he should not call any person unclean or common. This revelation prepares Peter to accept Gentiles, like Cornelius, into the Christian community, breaking down the barriers that separated Jews from non-Jews.

In summary, Peter's refusal to kill and eat a clean animal was rooted in his understanding of Jewish law and the deeper message of the vision regarding inclusivity in the faith.

While I am not an Ai devotee their conciseness sometimes makes a reasonable point.

T

[Jaime]

I would disagree Rella. Peter saw only 2 kinds of animals on the cloth, common and unclean. The question is what are COMMON animals? In my research, common animals to a Jew of that day were clean animals that were defiled by proximity or touching unclean animals. (Whichnwould have been the case on the tanke cloth of Peter's vision). Hence God's statement there: don't call what I have created clean as common. God was giving Peter an object leason about PEOPLE. God never created the Gentiles as unclean or common (profaned) he was showing Peter in no uncertain terms that God didn't consider Gentiles as common or unclean even though the traditions, or perverted  oral traditions of the Jews were in error considering the Gentiles common or unclean. Acts 10 was not at all about food, but about people - the Gentiles and God's plans.

According to the Torah, the concept of Gentiles being inherently "unclean" was a later development and a common Jewish belief and TRADITION, rather than a direct Torah commandment. While some Jewish sources state that Gentiles are ritually impure due to their practices, the biblical texts themselves do not forbid association with them but rather promote kindness to them. The idea of Gentiles being unclean was a prevailing taboo, not a divine law, and its origin was rooted in customs meant to separate Jewish people from other nations. Just as clean animals in proximity to unclean animalsdid NOT make the clean animals common or impure as God was showing Peter with the rooftop vision. Same with Jews being in proximity with Gentiles did  kt make the Jews common or  unclean - hence God's object lesson to Peter through his vision had EVERYTHING to do with God teaching Peter that being with Gentiles did not "contaminate" or any other Jew. It was NOT about making all foods clean. God made two types of animals, clean and unclean. Clean animals or clean humans being profaned or  being common with unclean animals or humans was dispelled in Acts 10. God's decrees about food  was not reversed here or in Mark 7, inspite of  the non-textual insertion at the end of Mark 7:19. This verse in the original text DOES NOT say "thus all doods are declared clean".

[garee]

I would offer.

Ceremonial laws shadows of the unseen eternal. Used as a parables hiding the gospel unseen eternal from the father of lies

Un-clean like a she Ass it must be redeemed by a lamb a clean animal or break its neck.

The gospel a sign to the unbelieving world that God is not served by the hands as a will of dying mankind

Again teaching God is not served by the hands of mankind .He can send an Ass as a apostles with words of prophecy. a Ass as a unbeliever .

We can preach he alone is the one good teaching master

Numbers 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

[Rella]

I would disagree Rella. Peter saw only 2 kinds of animals on the cloth, common and unclean. The question is what are COMMON animals? In my research, common animals to a Jew of that day were clean animals that were defiled by proximity or touching unclean animals. (Whichnwould have been the case on the tanke cloth of Peter's vision). Hence God's statement there: don't call what I have created clean as common. God was giving Peter an object leason about PEOPLE. God never created the Gentiles as unclean or common (profaned) he was showing Peter in no uncertain terms that God didn't consider Gentiles as common or unclean even though the traditions, or perverted  oral traditions of the Jews were in error considering the Gentiles common or unclean. Acts 10 was not at all about food, but about people - the Gentiles and God's plans.

According to the Torah, the concept of Gentiles being inherently "unclean" was a later development and a common Jewish belief and TRADITION, rather than a direct Torah commandment. While some Jewish sources state that Gentiles are ritually impure due to their practices, the biblical texts themselves do not forbid association with them but rather promote kindness to them. The idea of Gentiles being unclean was a prevailing taboo, not a divine law, and its origin was rooted in customs meant to separate Jewish people from other nations. Just as clean animals in proximity to unclean animalsdid NOT make the clean animals common or impure as God was showing Peter with the rooftop vision. Same with Jews being in proximity with Gentiles did  kt make the Jews common or  unclean - hence God's object lesson to Peter through his vision had EVERYTHING to do with God teaching Peter that being with Gentiles did not "contaminate" or any other Jew. It was NOT about making all foods clean. God made two types of animals, clean and unclean. Clean animals or clean humans being profaned or  being common with unclean animals or humans was dispelled in Acts 10. God's decrees about food  was not reversed here or in Mark 7, inspite of  the non-textual insertion at the end of Mark 7:19. This verse in the original text DOES NOT say "thus all foods are declared clean".

Ok, Jaime....

You definitely have the better explanation 

[Jaime]

You can't kid a kidder!  I don't think many if any will agree with me.

[Rella]

You can't kid a kidder!  I don't think many if any any will agree witb me.

Look son... I am older then you.... if I want to agree with you I will.

I just need a broadened mindset to incorporate additional "studies".
on subjects I am not overly familiar.

[Jaime]

 

[Jaime]

I am convinced that God did not an ul His food laws in Acts 10 or in Mark 7. Is there other scripture that serve to annul God's food laws?

https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/did-christ-declare-all-foods-clean-misunderstandings-regarding-mark-719/

I love pork especially bacon and of course shrimp, and I have never been convinced that Jesus annulled God's food laws, ESPECIALLY in Acts 10 and Mark 7. If there are other scriptures that accomplish that I would sure like to correct my conclusion! 🥺

[4WD]

I am convinced that God did not an ul His food laws in Acts 10 or in Mark 7. Is there other scripture that serve to annul God's food laws?

https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/did-christ-declare-all-foods-clean-misunderstandings-regarding-mark-719/

I love pork especially bacon and of course shrimp, and I have never been convinced that Jesus annulled God's food laws, ESPECIALLY in Acts 10 and Mark 7. If there are other scriptures that accomplish that I would sure like to correct my conclusion! 🥺

Col 2:13  And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of
your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
Col 2:14  by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Eph 2:14  For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
Eph 2:15  by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Eph 2:16  and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

Both of those passages indicate that in the New Covenant the Old Law was set aside and was replaced by the New Law of Christ and the Gospel. I think all of the moral institutes of the Old Law have been "reestablished" in that New Law and may be found in the various passages of the NT.  Such things as the prohibition against "unclean" food is not a part of that.  And in fact, that is the point of Paul's teaching in Romans 13 and 14.

[Rella]

Col 2:13  And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of
your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
Col 2:14  by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Eph 2:14  For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
Eph 2:15  by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Eph 2:16  and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

Both of those passages indicate that in the New Covenant the Old Law was set aside and was replaced by the New Law of Christ and the Gospel. I think all of the moral institutes of the Old Law have been "reestablished" in that New Law and may be found in the various passages of the NT.  Such things as the prohibition against "unclean" food is not a part of that.  And in fact, that is the point of Paul's teaching in Romans 13 and 14.

What about Mark 7:18-19 nasb95

18 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,

19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

then...
20 He continued: "What comes out of a man, that is what defiles him. 21For from within the hearts of men come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,...

[4WD]

What about Mark 7:18-19 nasb95

18 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,

19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

then...
20 He continued: "What comes out of a man, that is what defiles him. 21For from within the hearts of men come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,...

AMEN!!

[garee]

Yes hiding the gospel undestanding from the god of this world. Not subject to the spiritual invisible understanding of Christ . Without those parables using the temporal things seen as metaphors Christ spoke not.
 
Using as a metaphor the unclean like a she Ass that must be redeemed by a lamb the clean food or break its neck in judgment.

Therefore revealing our Holy Father not seen is not served by the dying hands as a will of mankind in any way shape or form. He continue his "Let there be" a new born again creation  having finished all the work during the 6 days of Creation.


Numbers 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

The many in Mathew 6 that were not called

Matthew 6:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew (sent) you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 

[Jaime]

Rella and 4WD, Mark 7 was only Jesus addressing the fact that eating without washing of hands as the Pharisee's traditions of Men required was NOT defiling anyone per God's  Torah. The Pharisees just literally MADE UP the hand washing requirement to prevent t ritual defilement before eating. The paranthetical addition at the end of  vs 19 that says "thus Jesus declared all foods clean is NOT in the original text but a biased interpretor's addition. I still don't believe Mark chapter 7 as originally written ever declared all foods clean. And neither does Acts chapter 10 about the animals in Peter's vision.

If the food laws were annulled it had to be somewhere else other than Acts 7and Mark 7.

Please look indepth at the link I provided with an open mind.  it explains somewhat better than I did especially about Mark 7.

The supposed annullment of the food laws has never made sense to me, AND I do love bacon wrapped shrimp. My recent studies have only strengthened my opinions in my mind. Because my question remains about whether there are any other clearer evidence of the food laws being annulled because Mark 7 and Acts 10 is definitely not proof in my mind.

[Rella]

Rella and 4WD, Mark 7 was only Jesus addressing the fact that eating without washing of hands as the Pharisee's traditions of Men required was NOT defiling anyone per God's  Torah. The Pharisees just literally MADE UP the hand washing requirement to prevent t ritual defilement before eating. The paranthetical addition at the end of  vs 19 that says "thus Jesus declared all foods clean is NOT in the original text but a biased interpretor's addition. I still don't believe Mark chapter 7 as originally written ever declared all foods clean. And neither does Acts chapter 10 about the animals in Peter's vision.

If the food laws were annulled it had to be somewhere else other than Acts 7and Mark 7.

Please look indepth at the link I provided with an open mind.  it explains somewhat better than I did especially about Mark 7.

The supposed annullment of the food laws has never made sense to me, AND I do love bacon wrapped shrimp. My recent studies have only strengthened my opinions in my mind. Because my question remains about whether there are any other clearer evidence of the food laws being annulled because Mark 7 and Acts 10 is definitely not proof in my mind.

You have a valid point in question this as it really is not clear and all sorts of explanations to make it true are not biblical.

But if not true .. and I find it no where else that it is said ... and I understand about the brackets after the verse in ark 7:19.... but again it goes on with Mark7:20-23

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

which to me just jumbles it al together... and you well could be right.

[Jaime]

Don't necessarily listen to me, I am not in line with the VAST majority of Christianity. I have been on a kick lately to really allow myself to test my "paradigms". And as the young people say, allow your long accepted paradigms to be rocked and tested. My baptism paradigms notwithstanding! I don't want to believe something just because it is a long held as truth. I want to ferret out the truth even if it goes against the norms accepted by my family, my tribe and their predecessors.

I am convinced that GOD's food laws were not meant to be a burden, but a blessing. Now the Pharisees definitely tightened the screws of legalism with their faulty Traditions of Men they added to God's instructions, that Jesus constantly and rightly railed against, especially in Mark 7.

[Rella]

Don't necessarily listen to me, I am not in line with the VAST majority of Christianity. I have been on a kick lately to really allow myself to test my "paradigms". And as the young people say, allow your long accepted paradigms to be rocked and tested. My baptism paradigms notwithstanding! I don't want to believe something just because it is a long held as truth. I want to ferret out the truth even if it goes against the norms accepted by my family, my tribe and their predecessors.

I am convinced that GOD's food laws were not meant to be a burden, but a blessing. Now the Pharisees definitely tightened the screws of legalism with their faulty Traditions of Men they added to God's instructions, that Jesus constantly and rightly railed against, especially in Mark 7.

Food laws may well still be in place in the eyes of God....

But why do you suppose in the vision/dream God said kill and eat with no regard to clean or dirty animals

[Jaime]

Food laws may well still be in place in the eyes of God....

But why do you suppose in the vision/dream God said kill and eat with no regard to clean or dirty animals

I would say God knew Peter was going to respond as to anything COMMON OR UNCLEAN, which was a natural leadin to God's object lesson to Peter about the Gentiles, who the Jews considered Common or Defiled (as in animals God made clean defiled by touch or in proximity with unclean animals). Peter would have had no problem killing and eating of the  clean  animals, but he had been indoctrinated with the Pharisee's faulty traditions of Men. God never made the Gentiles unclean or defiled. Hence the lesson to Peter: let no one call common or unclean what God made as clean! A perfect and appropriate object lesson and not a declaration that all animals are now clean. And Peter understood perfectly, and relayed the lesson to his fellow Jews and they also understood with Peter's re-telling in Acts 11. No mention of their celebrations of getting to eat a ham sandwich or rats or dogs or oysters. 🤔 The definition of "common" animal as an otherwise clean animal that is touching or close proximity to an unclean animal per the faulty Jewish way of looking at it because of  the Pharisee's perversion of Torah by their Traditions of Men.

As zealous for Torah as the Pharisees seemed, Jesus told them they had emptied or abolished Torah and he was filling it full again with the Spirit and not just the Letter of the Law,  but with the Spirit of the Law as God intended. Jesus reiterated in Mathew 5:17, he did not come to abolish or empty the Law but to full fill or FILL it FULL.

[garee]

Rella and 4WD, Mark 7 was only Jesus addressing the fact that eating without washing of hands as the Pharisee's traditions of Men required was NOT defiling anyone per God's  Torah. The Pharisees just literally MADE UP the hand washing requirement to prevent t ritual defilement before eating. The paranthetical addition at the end of  vs 19 that says "thus Jesus declared all foods clean is NOT in the original text but a biased interpretor's addition. I still don't believe Mark chapter 7 as originally written ever declared all foods clean. And neither does Acts chapter 10 about the animals in Peter's vision.

If the food laws were annulled it had to be somewhere else other than Acts 7and Mark 7.

Please look indepth at the link I provided with an open mind.  it explains somewhat better than I did especially about Mark 7.

The supposed annullment of the food laws has never made sense to me, AND I do love bacon wrapped shrimp. My recent studies have only strengthened my opinions in my mind. Because my question remains about whether there are any other clearer evidence of the food laws being annulled because Mark 7 and Acts 10 is definitely not proof in my mind.

It would seem Peter the denier worshiped the shadow as if it was not a ceremonial law. Like. . When Aarons two sons performed they offering strange fire (adding to prophecy) adding it the loving commandments with a sign that pointed to their own self . . the fire judgment consumed them .not a hint of smoke on the ceremonial priestly attire

I would offer ceremonial pertaining to ceremonies only. .  as a sign to the unbelieving world. .

Food laws; "shadows" of the unseen things of "Christ the substance"  revealed by the scripture. Prophecy designed for the Christians  used in parables.

They can be looked at in two different ways .(1) Natural converted food law necessary to fulfil the law of starving If man not work neither shall he eat.no work no eat. And (2) the spiritual law the eternal unseen substance of the shadow. The law the apostles knew not of.

The power of the invisible Holy Father working in the son of man Jesus  to both (the key ) hear the instruction and power to perform it to the good pleasure of the Holy Father .    the food the apostles knew not of the daily bread .again to both hear and do the good and powerful will of the Holy Father..

John 4:31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Again both to hear the undestanding and empower to do to the good pleasure .Food not seen food of daily faith .The Son of man Jesus did it with delight some like Jonas the murmurer .

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

1 Peter informs  the believer as a parable of the shadows used in ceremonial law. Sons of God Christians trusting a eternal God not seen receiving the reward of Christ's labor of love, a work of His faithfulness the born again seed..

1 Peter 1:7-10 That the trial of your born again faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your (born again) faith, even the salvation of your souls.Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

The glorying shadow became sight. .