Usually presented in concert with mistranslated and out of context citations of the seventh chapter of Mark, there are other popular New Testament texts that appear to relinquish Moses’ dietary laws for all of Christendom. For example, in the book of Acts, there is a short story where Peter seems to receive permission from Heaven itself to embrace an unkosher omnivore diet. Extracted from its greater context, Peter’s remarkable animal vision is presented below.
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air.
Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. ”I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that Elohim has made clean.”
This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. (Acts 10:9–16)
After reading Peter’s “kill and eat!” vision recorded in the tenth chapter of Acts, it is obvious that the account makes references to Old Covenant dietary regulations. In fact, Acts 10 even makes direct reference to animal types used for food—unlike the Mark 7 dialogue, which instead discussed topics of mealtime cleansing traditions and the origin of evil.
Regardless, it is without due consideration of the greater New Testament contexts that this text is often interpreted as unkosher reinforcement of Mark 7; it is assumed to reiterate the idea that “Yeshua made all animals clean.” After all, Peter was instructed to “kill and eat” right after he saw a sheet containing various animals descending from heaven. Additionally, a voice from heaven commanded Peter, “Do not call anything impure that Elohim has made clean.” According to traditional teachings, these texts prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the New Testament permits Christian disciples to eat anything and everything.
Clean Precedent
Peter, however, responded to the contrary, emphatically testifying to his individual commitment to Moses’ Torah. But why was Peter so stubborn and compelled to object—even after hearing a voice from heaven three times? Why didn’t he give in and agree to the heavenly request at some point?
Given the circumstances, it is prudent to first evaluate Peter’s protests from the perspective of precedent, in that he boasted a perfect record of upholding Moses’ dietary Torah. While the response “I have never eaten anything unclean” bears striking resemblance to the words of the prophet Ezekiel uttered centuries prior,45 the use of precedent is really more applicable to Peter’s experiences within his own lifetime. Curiously enough, despite all of Peter’s character flaws and shortcomings, which are candidly disclosed in New Testament texts, the gospel texts never offer any information to undermine Peter’s claims to kosher compliance. After all, Peter could have easily fished shellfish and catfish out of the Sea of Galilee; and as a professional fisherman and miracle witness, Peter could have even fished for pork out of the same lake subsequent to Yeshua’ exorcism of a legion of demons, which resulted in a mass swine drowning! 46 Nevertheless, the voice from heaven neither faulted for failure to comply with Moses’ dietary Torah, nor rebuked him for his boasting without basis. In other words, after Peter’s claim to dietary perfection, the heavenly voice did not tell Peter, “That’s impossible, Peter! Moses’ food laws are too hard for you to keep.”
Peter’s precedent demands a simple answer to a simple question; “If Yeshua ‘declared all foods clean,’ why did Peter refuse to accept this earlier teaching of Yeshua?” For had Yeshua declared all foods clean in Mark 7, then Peter would have responded differently in his vision, only claiming that he never ate anything unclean before Yeshua told him that he could do otherwise.
This problem of the unclean-animals-for-food precedent clearly extends into earlier gospel teachings and narratives as well. Given that the Acts account is the first of the New Testament to allude to the ingestion of unclean animal varieties, it is most curious that Yeshua did nothing to notify his audience of the pending or upcoming change to the Torah—either by authoritative declaration, by public consent, by public example, or by prophetic prediction. Why would Yeshua defer such important and potentially controversial changes to God’s Torah through Moses until after his ascension? It’s not as if Yeshua had a reputation for retreating from controversy; he didn’t abandon debates, cowering in fear. Why wouldn’t Yeshua personally take a more direct approach, a stronger stance on recanting Moses’ dietary Torah, leaving it recorded for all in gospel texts? Why introduce such a radical food Torah paradigm shift through a single man without witness, and why leave such a critical matter up to a brief set of enigmatic visions?
Not only is the lack of unkosher precedent relevant to Yeshua’ teaching and Peter’s visionary claims, but it also applies to every one of Yeshua’ disciples. Not a single one of the twelve is described in New Testament texts as indulging in an unkosher diet. Moreover, the animals in Peter’s vision were imaginary; and there is no evidence that he satisfied his appetite in accordance with the vision on awakening. In fact, the account fails to describe Peter’s post-vision lunchtime cuisine, and the text remains silent with respect to Peter’s future dietary habits.
Peter, Linnaeus, and Moses
Instead of guessing about Peter’s diet and speculating as to why he did not concede in his vision, perhaps it would be prudent to first consider exactly what Peter saw. Referring to the sheet in Peter’s vision, the Acts text describes,
Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. (Acts 10:12 - KJV)
While the Acts listing of quadrupeds, wild beasts, creeping things, and flying things may sound vague by today’s elaborate Latin-based animal taxonomy systems, it is of note that these animal groups correspond with earlier biblical animal classifications. Long before Carl Linnaeus and his system of animal classification were conceived, Elohim had established one through Moses—and Peter was undoubtedly familiar with it.
Moses’ system was not scientifically complex, dividing organisms into species from genus, families, orders, classes, phylum, kingdoms, and domains as Linnaeus did. Moses’ system of animal classification employed two primary categories: clean and unclean. By means of these two principal classifications, Elohim described what people could and could not eat—as well as what they could and should not touch. Other than the clean and unclean, Moses referred to only four simple animal classifications or subcategories: land-dwellers, aquatic creatures, flying things, and crawling things, as depicted on the book cover.
Among the four principal animal subcategories, the distinctions between clean and unclean were simple, and are delineated by the writings of Moses cited below.
Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud. There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. (Lev. 11:2–4)
Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you. (Lev. 11:9–12)
These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (Lev. 11:13–19)
All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest. (Lev. 11:20–23)
Although the New Testament is by no means a book created to extensively describe animal anatomy and taxonomy, it is interesting that the animals of Peter’s Acts vision correlate perfectly with the main Levitical subcategories,47 with the exception of aquatic creatures, which were excluded from the vision. It stands to reason, then, that among the types of animals Peter saw, there were two kinds—clean48 and unclean.49
Peter, however, rejected the entire lot of animals outright. Yet Peter’s problem was not in rejecting unclean animals as food, but rather in rejecting all animals—the clean animals along with the unclean ones. In other words, Peter pronounced all of the clean animal varieties to be “common” (κοινός/koinos),50 based upon their proximity to unclean animals, and therefore inedible, given that they were corralled with the unclean (ακάθαρτος/akathartos)51 ones. But the voice from heaven did not rebuke Peter for refusing to eat the animals that were unclean (or ακάθαρτος/akathartos); instead, the voice warned Peter about making things to be common or unholy (κοινόω/koinoō).52 He made blanket statements about the animals; his problems were therefore those of discernment and separation. Peter protested, “Surely not!” when he probably should have responded, “Kill and eat what?” since there would also have been clean varieties on the white sheet menu from which he could choose.53
Peter’s Puzzle
In trying to comprehend Peter’s vision, it is also important to consider things from Peter’s perspective. For example, what did Peter think the “Get up, kill, and eat” vision meant? Did he interpret his vision as “Go ahead and eat the unclean animals,” or did he understand the instruction and vision in some other way?
Apparently, during the vision, Peter was praying on a rooftop. If the “rise-kill-eat” commandment was meant to be fulfilled literally, surely it would require some sort of living unclean animal to be present with him on the roof. However, in examining the Acts chapter 10 and 11 accounts, it is reasonable to infer that lunch was being prepared for Peter. Thus, when Peter did get up from his prayer-trance-vision, he was not literally inclined to kill, since a meal was being prepared for him. Neither was Peter’s first post-vision response to eat, nor is there evidence that Peter was being served something unclean. Peter was clearly puzzled at the conclusion of the vision, and he continued to ponder what he had experienced, trying desperately to understand.
Of course, Peter’s saga did not conclude with him dwelling on the “kill and eat” mandate. Thus the plot thickens as the Acts account continues,
While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.” (Acts 10:19–20)
Obviously, “kill and eat” would not be a prudent way to receive divinely dispatched houseguests; hence Peter did not respond by murder and cannibalism following the knock at the door.
Peter’s Missing Puzzle Pieces
After greeting his guests, the Acts account records additional details of Peter’s divine appointments following his vision. A devout Roman centurion named Cornelius, who had a complementary vision, had sent three of his men to summon Peter to Caesarea. During his road trip with the men between Joppa and Caesarea, Peter had time to ponder the circumstances—past, present, and future—in light of his curious “kill and eat” vision. The meaning of his vision would not be fully revealed until he arrived at his destination, at the behest of the centurion. Explaining his assorted-animal “kill and eat” vision, Peter’s story and testimony continue.
Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our Torah for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But Elohim has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?
Cornelius answered: “Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me and said, ‘Cornelius, Elohim has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of Elohim to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.’
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that Elohim does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.”
… while Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising Elohim. (Acts 10:27–35, 44–46)
Alas, the interpretation of Peter’s “kill and eat” vision is unveiled—completely devoid of food types, dining habits, cleansing rituals, or culinary contexts! Just as his vision indicated, Peter was in the habit of categorically rejecting the Gentiles as “unholy” or “common,” regardless of whether they were clean or unclean. Peter assumes no eating connections from his earlier vision; instead, his self-realization following Cornelius’ revelation dealt with his own people perception problems!
Not long after his own personal breakthrough, Peter encountered the same religious bigotry among circumcised believers in Jerusalem, who claimed that his behavior was contrary to their religious tradition.54 In response, Peter again confessed his own prejudice against Gentiles, citing his “kill and eat” vision in its entirety to teach these believers the error of undue favoritism.55 On both occasions, Peter recalled the same vision and interpreted it in the same way. Unlike Elohim, Peter and circumcised believers in Jerusalem did not openly accept men from every nation who did what was right. Instead, they isolated themselves from all Gentiles, and rejected the Gentiles as unholy or common.
Jewish Torah versus Moses’ Torah
In his confession, Peter makes a point to differentiate between “our Torah” (i.e., Jewish Torah or tradition) and God’s Torah in Acts chapters 10 and 11. In this Acts text, Peter distinguishes between the “two laws” exactly as Yeshua had done repeatedly in Mark chapter 7. In Mark’s gospel, Yeshua suggested that particular Jewish teaching and tradition was not originating from or in agreement with Moses’ Torah; he also provided clarification in saying that eating something unclean could not make you corrupt or evil. In the same way, the Jewish Torah that polarized Peter and his Jerusalem counterparts into isolating themselves from the uncircumcised Gentiles could not be found in Moses’ scrolls.
Although national or ethnic isolation during mealtime was not a Mosaic decree, it is likely that the Jewish tradition of that time was extrapolated from divine commandments given at the time of the Egyptian exodus. In addition to legitimate prohibitions on intermarriage to certain tribes characterized by inbreeding,56 Moses’ Torah did indeed include special and limited social barriers between the circumcised and uncircumcised. Yet these barriers were imposed only for Passover, as described below.
Yehovah said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it … An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it. The same Torah applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you.” (Ex. 12:43–45, 48–49)
In Acts, through Peter’s vision, Elohim changes no food Torah, but instead clarifies his expectations for human relations. In the same way that the Pharisees and the teachers of the Torah had exaggerated and distorted the cleanliness and dietary laws, so too were Peter and his fellow Jews in Jerusalem conditioned to exaggerate the Jews’ unique distinction far beyond its God-given Mosaic or prophetic contexts. As made evident by Yeshua’ teachings in Mark, people were defiled not by what they ate, but by what they exuded or touched, just as indicated in Leviticus. Also, as Peter was reminded in the Acts account, uncleanness57 was not categorically ascribed to uncircumcised Gentiles; Leviticus implies that Jew and Gentile alike are born unclean.58 Thereafter, their state of physical cleanliness would be directly coupled to their adherence to Moses’ Torah, not to their heritage. Moses’ Torah did not forbid an Israelite to eat or associate with his fellow man; this was likely a Jewish extrapolation,59 perhaps a ‘fence Torah’ Pharisaic in origin and intended to protect people from violating kosher commandments, or even intermarrying with nations descended from incestuous relationships.
To the contrary, the Torah of Moses demanded that the people of Israel welcome the alien with compassion, respect, and justice,60 just as Abraham welcomed complete strangers61 several generations before Moses’ birth. As a matter of fact, Moses’ Torah required Israelite landowners to allow aliens to glean from their fields and vineyards.62 So, given the circumstances, Peter’s interpretation of his “kill and eat” vision should not have been a surprise to either Jewish or other believers who were advocates of Moses’ writings.
Spiritual Bigotry and Theological Absurdity
Just in case Peter’s personal revelations and the spiritual outpouring would be deemed as an insufficient explanation for his vision, the context of the story of Cornelius is extracted from a larger whole. Following Peter’s “kill and eat” vision, Acts expounds even further on theology prevalent within the first century Judeo-Christian community. According to the Acts account, some men from Jerusalem that were sent to Antioch were confused by the meaning of the covenants of Abraham and Moses, and were teaching,
Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)
Moreover, Christian believers of Jerusalem, who affiliated with a party of Pharisees, sided with those from Antioch and also insisted,
The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Torah of Moses. (Acts 15:5)
In the ancient covenants, however, neither Abraham nor Moses promised eternal salvation as a result of circumcision, as the Pharisees had insisted; neither was circumcision prescribed for Gentiles outside of Abraham’s household. As such, without negating the covenant, the laws of Moses, or the commandment of circumcision, Peter made a point to testify on the Gentiles’ behalf and clarify the relationship between circumcision and salvation.
Brothers, you know that some time ago Elohim made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. Elohim, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test Elohim by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Yeshua that we are saved, just as they are. (Acts 15:7–11)
Clearly, the yoke to which Peter alluded could be described as extra-biblical requirements, which implied salvation was works-based. As they were teaching in Antioch, the Pharisees of Christian affiliation obviously ascribed salvation or redemption to circumcision; moreover, they taught that the Gentiles were required to obey all of Moses’ Torah to be saved. Furthermore, according to Moses, circumcision was to be performed on the eighth day.63 The Pharisees may have implied that those who missed out on this religious rite and commandment were forever excluded from salvation and the ‘chosen people’ club. As commanded by Moses, however, this custom was an involuntary endeavor, dictated by heritage and parental decision.
The Pharisees visiting Antioch were stretching the texts, implying that salvation was accomplished—in part— through the hands of men, and connecting the covenant and rite to a promise without a basis for doing so. Yet circumcision was never connected to salvation—either by Moses or by Abraham.64 The Pharisees were promoting a form of spiritual bigotry in Antioch which Peter openly denounced in Jerusalem, largely due to the insight that he gleaned from his strange animal vision and experience with Cornelius.
Abbreviated Gentile Commands?
After hearing testimony from Paul and Barnabas regarding the mass conversion of Gentiles,65 James felt compelled to quote a portion of Moses’ Torah on the heels of Peter’s circumcision-salvation speech quoted above, interjecting some interesting opinions of his own. Candidly revealing his position in the matter as personal judgment, James’ argument seems to include remarks pertaining to dietary Torah as well.
It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to Elohim. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. (Acts 15:19–21)
This reasoning and judgment of James was apparently unanimously popular in the Jerusalem assembly. Sending a hand-carried letter via Paul and Barnabas to the believers of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, the ‘council’ of Jerusalem wrote,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul—men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Yeshua Messiah. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. (Acts 15:23–29)
Sadly, like Peter’s “kill and eat” vision account, such isolated excerpts from Acts have been interpreted to justify a wide variety of lawless behavior over the centuries. Yet the small list described above can hardly be interpreted as a comprehensive listing of do’s and don’ts for Gentiles, whether the audience members are new or mature believers. As in the case of Peter’s vision, inspection of a few other New Testament texts reveals a much greater context.
Peter’s Vision—A Prophecy of Peter
In reading the Jerusalem council account and letter from Acts isolated unto itself, it is possible to deduce that James and Peter had been a united and inspired duo—leading the way in corrective teaching as the Jerusalem council reached its decision. The great irony of the story, however, is that James and Peter were collectively responsible for leading Antioch’s Gentile believers astray some time before their meeting! Though the author of Acts refrains from elaborating on these details, other New Testament texts reveal that Peter had previously sided with overzealous circumcision advocates, who James had initially commissioned to teach in Antioch. These facts surface in Paul’s corresponding account written to the Galatians, which again denounced unacceptable Jewish traditions, but did not undermine God’s commands given through Moses. Implicating James along with Peter, Paul wrote,
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” (Gal. 2:11–14)
In light of this Galatians text, the purpose of Peter’s rise-kill-eat vision becomes all the more obvious. After all, Paul’s writings clearly showed a Peter who was radically different than the one taking the lead at the Jerusalem council meeting – one who was younger, fickle, phobic, and prejudiced. Likewise, Paul revealed how members of Antioch’s religious community lacked the ability to distinguish between Moses’ Torah and man-made customs, and overlooked the great importance of being hospitable to new Gentile believers. As such, it would appear from the Galatians text that Peter was enlightened with his vision not for the sake of his lunch menu, but rather for the sake of personal and public correction in arenas of hospitality.
As for Peter’s personal character correction, it would appear that Peter’s earlier vision in Joppa was insufficient, hence the need for Paul’s later rebuke in Antioch.66 As recorded in Galatians, Peter had a propensity to yield to peer pressure; his national loyalty inspired him to revert to Jewish religious traditions, which included behavior beyond what Moses’ Torah had instructed. Clearly, the meaning of the Acts vision is obscured without considering Peter’s character flaws and participation in inappropriate religious bigotry. Therefore, in the same way it is essential to know what Moses and Yeshua really said about unclean animals and common foods, it is also crucial to understand Peter’s character and experience before the vision, lest the vision be put into improper context.
The voice in the vision commanded, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat!” Yet given Peter’s revelation in light of the big picture—including the account of Cornelius and Antioch per the Galatians text, it would be better interpreted as, “Get up, Peter. Make a distinction, and eat with the God-fearing Gentiles who do what is right!” After all, that is exactly how Peter interpreted his vision at the end of the story, and that is exactly how he responded to the revelation.
Four Commandments to Four Men?
By overlooking the greater contexts surrounding the circumcision teachings and Peter’s vision, people might be inclined to take the Antioch letter of Acts 15 as a foundation for reducing the duty of believers to four simple, potentially vague, and seemingly arbitrary commandments. Some interpret the Antioch letter as universal and infallible Holy Writ, created to help establish streamlined New Testament doctrines for Gentile churches. But is it correct to infer that the four lone commandments were indeed to be regarded as universal and comprehensive—that they were simplified moral mandates for all Gentile believers to live by, starting at that moment and continuing forever? A closer examination of the content and context of the letter demonstrates that this is not a correct interpretation or application of the texts.
At the time the Jerusalem council letter was drafted, the circumstances in Jerusalem and Antioch letter were complicated and volatile. Jerusalem had been enduring periods of religious persecution, while the Antioch congregation dealt with its own unique set of problems. The assembly in Antioch would be challenged by an influx of persecuted immigrants, the absorption of gentiles, and a variety of new and differing doctrines brought by a medley of teachers. Given such influences and the absence of stability, there would be no telling the amount of damage that the foreign teachers might cause. Consequentially, Antioch’s problems could not be resolved by a single letter decreeing arbitrary observance of four commandments. Given this reality, the letter to Antioch was not written with the intent of delineating four limited commandments applicable to the Gentiles, but rather to introduce four men who would travel to Antioch in the flesh and resolve the confusion among the Gentiles, representing the consensus reached by the Jerusalem council. The problem was confusion in Antioch; the solution was a four-man team—two hailing from Jerusalem and two who were well-known in Antioch. This cause-effect/problem-solution relationship is outlined in the text below.
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul—men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Yeshua Messiah. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. (Acts 15:24–27)
It could be inferred from the opening statement in this passage that the council’s greatest concern was to restore tranquility to the congregation of Antioch that Paul and Barnabas reported the conflict to the council. Thus the council’s decision to send four men was intended to restore sanity to Antioch and to comfort the people. Two of the four men, Paul and Barnabas, were relatively unaffiliated with the affairs of the Jerusalem council, but were present in Antioch as the circumcision-salvation dispute emerged. As a result, they would be quite cognizant of the parties involved and the doctrinal issues at hand. The remaining two men, Judas (a.k.a. Barsabas, not Judas Iscariot) and Silas, were sent to bear witness to the council’s position, thereby representing Jerusalem and confirming the legitimacy of the teaching of Paul and Barnabas, who had already spent a considerable amount of time in Antioch.67 Furthermore, it stands to reason that Antioch was familiar with Judas and Silas, given their roles as witnesses or emissaries, as described in the letter.
Because of the dispatch of the team of gurus, the council’s letter included a very limited set of instructions, and it is obvious that they made no effort to detail and clarify topics preceding its meeting. As such, the letter made no mention of circumcision, no reference to acceptable and unacceptable animal types, and no suggestions on racial or religious segregation in dining environments. It only vaguely mentioned the circumcision-salvation fanatics, who may still have been at large, causing further confusion in the assembly. The letter even failed to mention anything about being ‘saved by grace;’ it made no comment on the topic of messianic salvation either. To the contrary, these issues—and perhaps many more—were to be resolved by four men after the letter was delivered and the situation assessed.
Letter of Inspiration?
As for the remainder of the Acts letter, it is problematic at best to equate it with universal and infallible Holy Writ created to articulate lasting New Testament doctrines for a Gentile church. As such, the council’s letter concludes circumstantially,
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. (Acts 15:28–29)
Lest it be forgotten, the letter was a reaction, created by request and out of necessity in particular circumstances, after major obfuscation of information and corruption of doctrine; it was also addressed specifically to “Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.” It was delivered along with four expert teachers.68 To suggest that it applies in its limited capacity to all Gentile churches forevermore is a little like picking up mail sent to someone else and dated ‘urgent’ or ‘time-sensitive’ and thinking that the message applies to the third-party interceptor and is complete and eternal. It would be like assuming that a weekly church bulletin or sermon outline is a complete representation of everything uttered from behind the pulpit. It could be compared to fixating upon an answer while completely ignoring the substance of the corresponding question. Obviously, the New Testament audience is left without details as to Antioch’s circumstances, needs, inclinations, or demographics, making it that much more difficult to understand any other points of confusion within the Antioch assembly.
Nevertheless, the single concluding ‘Holy Spirit’ reference might compel many to elevate the authors’ authority and infer that the four subsequent instructions were offered as a new and fully comprehensive replacement set of commandments. Yet given its content and construction, equating the letter to communal and Holy Spirit-inspired writ may be problematic. Unlike testimonies from Old Testament prophets, which were always given to or through individuals in the singular and without evidence of democracy or popular human opinion, the council seems to speak subjectively and more from the perspective of consensus opinion rather than from divine revelation.
The Jerusalem council, a body whose members are unidentified and unknown and therefore unaccountable, clearly and repeatedly employed a ‘signature of man’ throughout the letter.69 Like the self-confessed judgment of James preceding it, the nouns and pronouns that the council employed are suggestive. The text contains many phrases emphasizing human origin, involvement, perception, and authority. Phrases demonstrating human initiatives include “we have heard,” “out from us,” “without our authorization,” “we all agreed,” “men who have,” “therefore we are sending,” “word of mouth,” “we are writing,” and “to us.” Surely, the use of blended authority—“it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”—is perhaps the most curious language in the letter, as if it were of critical importance to have God’s opinion backed by the council’s consent. If that were the case, this would be the first time in Bible history that Almighty Elohim accepted his authority as being equal to that of an anonymous human counsel—or that Elohim would need his authority backed by a human assembly. Surely, remaining anonymous in such a critical affair might be likened to sending the Declaration of Independence without adding signatures. Without witnesses, such a letter would be unlikely to inspire its recipients.
James’ Half-Torah
The impact of James’ remarks on the council’s decision and the letter’s content must also be given due consideration. For James made no comments on the subject at hand, namely the circumcision-salvation topic; instead, the teaching of four commandments to the Gentiles was James’s suggestion. But why? Where did James and the council get the idea for the four new commandments? Was this revealed to them by the Holy Spirit?
At first glance, it might appear as if James were trying to change the subject from circumcision to something else. After all, it is possible that James took individual initiative in dispatching some of Jerusalem’s Christian Pharisees without council consent – like he seems to have done earlier while Peter was in Antioch.70 But in revealing James’ advice more carefully, James’ suggestion appears to demonstrate a great deal of prudence and insight.
For those familiar with the Torah of Moses, the four commandments given to the Gentiles of Antioch on the recommendation of James will not be viewed as new. All of them, including the injunctions to abstain from idols, blood, meat of strangled animals, and sexual immorality, can be found in the center of Moses’ Torah in the book of Leviticus. More specifically, the four commandments can be inferred from a single and central chapter found exactly halfway through the Torah of Moses— Leviticus chapter 19—which includes a summary of prior commandments. These commandments and those surrounding them were not arbitrarily selected; they were foundational to the faith. In fact, these four principles can be easily inferred from even earlier portions of the Bible—all the way back in Genesis.
Following his advice to refer the Gentiles to the very center of Moses’ Torah, James makes another curious statement. Not wanting to make things too hard for the new believers of Antioch, James offers some interesting and pertinent reasoning behind his four-commandment recommendation, saying,
For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. (Acts 15:21)
James’ comment implies firstly that the teachings of Moses would already be familiar to new believers, secondly that they were to continue learning, and finally that synagogues remained legitimate places for doing so! After all, copies of the Scriptures in ancient days were especially scarce and precious. It’s not like the Gideons were stashing mass produced copies of the Hebrew Bible or Greek Septuagint in each hotel room. The William Tyndale and King James Versions were a long way off, as the English language was nonexistent two thousand years ago. Even Guttenberg’s printing press was many centuries away from being rolled out. Hand written on sheepskin, the ancient scrolls were expensive to buy and labor intensive to reproduce. Because the scrolls were luxury items, the synagogue was likely to have a set of the divine Hebrew Scriptures handy and available for community use —probably the only copy in town.
From the Acts context, it seems likely that the ex-pagan Gentiles of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia had little or no foundation in the Scriptures; they didn’t even know where to begin! Yet in the local synagogue, not only would they find copies of the texts, but they would be exposed to regular weekly readings of the books of Moses.71 The synagogue visitation would not only help members of the Gentile community to understand the Bible, which was carefully recorded on Hebrew scrolls, but it would assure that they received the Word in regular and digestible doses through weekly reading cycles, in accordance with ancient traditions. The Gentiles were to learn along with those familiar with the ancient Scripture. Moreover, public synagogue readings would serve both the literate and illiterate. Newcomers could engage in study without feeling left behind forever, since the Jewish tradition of reading the entire works of Moses repeated annually.
Beyond basic study, there were numerous benefits to be realized as a result of Gentile integration into Jewish synagogues. Integration was an essential element in reconciliation and demolishing social barriers between Jews and Gentiles. As the Gentiles integrated themselves among Jews in the synagogues, the divisions and hostility between the believers could begin to dissolve. If an uncircumcised Gentile believer were permitted into a synagogue to learn and worship in accordance with the Hebrew faith, the separation in the dining halls—and throughout the culture—would diminish as well as the Gentiles returned to the covenant and to the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Misunderstandings and long-standing hostilities could be replaced with respect and friendship.
Although it stands to reason that Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and Judas might relay such synagogue attendance recommendations to the Gentile believers, the reverse may also have been true. Paul was well received in some synagogues, while being harshly persecuted in others. He was stoned and left for dead by men from Pisidian Antioch. For this reason, Gentile integration into Jewish synagogues may not have been included as a mandate or even as a recommendation in the Antioch letter. Nevertheless, returning to ‘the heart of the Torah’ was exactly what the Jerusalem council was prescribing for the new believers as they reiterated the four commandments in the letter to Antioch. It was the central doctrine of every God-fearing synagogue that revered the Torah of Moses.
From Sinai’s Ten to Antioch’s Four to Corinth’s Ten
From the standpoint of Christian theology, Paul’s rebuke to the believers in Corinth is further evidence that the short four- commandment list sent to Antioch was not complete, universal, or all-encompassing doctrine. Going beyond the Jerusalem council’s list of prohibitions, Paul defined wickedness to the Corinthian Gentiles using ten unique terms.
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of Elohim? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of Elohim. (1 Cor. 6:9–10)
In contrast with the Jerusalem-Antioch letter list, Paul makes no mention of blood or strangulation to the Corinthians. He does, however, seem to disqualify thieves, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers, and the greedy from the kingdom of heaven. Yet somehow murderers, the covetous, and those disobedient to parents are omitted here. Clearly, neither the Antioch nor the Corinthian letters can be viewed as comprehensive in their scope or complete in their authority. They fail even to cover the breadth of what is described in Moses’ Ten Commandments. Surely, such New Testament teachings must be regarded as reiterative and complementary to earlier commandments; they cannot be mistaken for unique revelation introduced to comprehensively replace preexisting moral mandates.
Concluding Peter’s Acts with Gentiles
In conclusion, the Acts account surrounding Peter’s vision should not be summarized thematically by the one-line “get up Peter; kill and eat” mandate. The story did not begin or end at Peter’s vision. It was not about food; it was given to offer specific community integration lessons for Jews and Gentiles alike.
In Joppa, Peter saw a large collection of animals in a vision. He heard a voice that said, “Get up, kill, and eat.” He refused and testified that he never ate unclean or defiled animals. Thereafter, Peter was rebuked for making all things unholy, as he rejected them as “common.” But he did not understand what the vision meant, and he did not “get up, kill, and eat” or change his diet post-trance.
A righteous Gentile named Cornelius experienced a vision that was concurrent and complementary with Peter’s vision. Peter met Cornelius, along with other righteous Gentiles. Cornelius shared his dream with Peter. This first enabled Peter to interpret his own dream and convicted him to confess and repent of his bigotry. While he was forced to eat crow, figuratively speaking, he was not compelled to eat ostriches, pigs, camels, rabbits, frogs, turtles, roaches, or crustaceans, literally speaking. Even Peter’s Jerusalem audience who heard his testimony responded to it in like manner.
Paul and Barnabas spent a year teaching in Antioch and made multiple trips to teach there.72 At some point, Peter met with Paul and Barnabas in Antioch, and he was cordial to righteous Gentile believers. Over time, James sent Christian Pharisees, who promoted illegitimate circumcision teachings,73 from Jerusalem to Antioch. As familiar and fellow Jews, Peter befriended them, but he became a little too friendly with them. Unduly influenced by them, Peter stopped eating with “unclean” Gentiles, influencing Barnabas to withdraw. Paul, however, rebuked Peter for his behavior.
Later, after the circumcision-salvation confusion was introduced to Antioch, men including Peter, James, Paul, and Barnabas testified before the Jerusalem council. Having learned his lesson from his vision and Paul’s rebuke, Peter testified on behalf of the Gentiles, who he no longer belittled and branded as “common.” Likewise, James suggested that the Gentiles begin at the center of Moses’ Torah to help clarify their misunderstandings. He suggested the opposite of alienating the Gentiles—implying that they should turn to synagogues to learn from Moses’ Torah. The council dispatched Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and Judas for purposes of representation and tasked them to resolve circumcision-salvation doctrine conflicts so that the uncircumcised Gentiles of Antioch would no longer be confused or unjustly alienated.
What should Peter “kill and eat,” and with whom should he eat? Discernment would be a central ingredient in Peter’s meals in days to follow. He wouldn’t drink blood or eat animals killed by strangulation. Maintaining his convictions about animal types, Peter would continue fishing for marine life endowed with fins and scales and keep eating cud-chewing herbivores with split hooves. Yet his perceptions of things unclean would be forever changed, so his policies with respect to human relationships would never be the same. Not only was Peter given the liberty to eat with unwashed hands after fishing or visiting the market, he was also given the freedom to expand his social circles. His dinner company would now include righteous Gentiles.
Just as Yeshua never made all foods clean, neither did Peter make them clean through his vision. Peter’s lessons, confessions, and instructions were greater than his vision. Rather than “get up, kill, and eat,” he would make it a habit to look, listen, and discern. Only then would Peter be happy to sit down, live, and eat!