FAQ - Acts 10 - Does Peter's Vision Teach that Everything is Now Food?

Acts 10 - Does Peter’s vision teach us that all animals are now clean and therefore now food?

It might be asked how a vision that has a clear interpretation offered to us not once, but twice, in Scripture
can be still misinterpreted and then promoted by mainstream Biblical commentary. In addition, not only the
often cited misinterpretation contradict the interpretation clearly established, but it also fails when tested to
God's Word in both the Old Testament and New Testament. Even our Savior Himself states that such an
interpretation is not possible.

Does Peter’s vision teach us that all animals are now clean and therefore now food?

Ac 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a
trance,

Ac 10:11 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:

Ac 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things,
and fowls of the air.

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

Ac 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Ac 10:15 And the voice spoke unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou
common.

Ac 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

Ac 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the
men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

1) In verse 10:14, even 14-15 years after our Messiah died on the cross, Peter still defines certain animals
as clean or unclean according to God’s law (Leviticus 11). Apparently in all of Peter’s fellowship with
Y'shua (Jesus) and the other disciples no one was taught that all animals are now food. Peter still clearly
distinguishes between clean and unclean and states that he has never eaten anything unclean.

2) Peter did not immediately understand the vision, nor did he the second time, or even the third time. He
had to be told 3 times because apparently being told to eat common animals did not register with him at all.
In fact, even after being told this 3 times we learn in verse 17 he still doubted what the vision actually
meant. Apparently Peter still does not think he should “kill and eat” unclean and common (unholy) animals
in the same way that we want to interpret the vision. Why?

Why would Peter just not simply conclude that God abolished His dietary instructions? Isn’t that
obviously what this vision is teaching? What is the problem with Peter and why is he so slow to come
to such a conclusion?

Peter knows that Y'shua (Jesus) stated that no commandments would ever be abolished or destroyed (Matt.
5:17-19) until all of the Law and Prophets are fulfilled and Heaven and Earth pass away. Just as it is clear
today that Heaven and Earth have not passed away, it can be reasonably assumed that Peter also understood
that Heaven and Earth have not yet passed away (2 Peter 3:13) We know that all of God's law is not yet
fulfilled, that parts of God's law are still shadows of things to come (1 Col. 2:17). Peter would have
understood all of this being a teacher of God's Word and he knows that he can not interpret a vision that
would clearly contradict God's Word.

Also, Peter knows that there is no scripture that teaches that God’s dietary instructions were to ever pass
away, or any commandment for that matter. Peter would even have to take Amos 3:7 into account that
states that God reveals everything to His prophets before He does anything. There is nothing in prophecy
about God abolishing any commandments. In fact, His Word states the exact opposite. It is clearly stated
that His commandments would be forever, perpetual, and lasting in the generations to come. Forever is
actually the opposite of temporary and sporadic.

He also knew that in Is 66:17, in the context of Y'shua (Jesus) returning to judge in His second coming, that
it is evident that those still ignoring His dietary instructions experience some disturbing consequences.

Isa 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one [tree] in the
midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the
LORD.

Isa 66:18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and
tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

Obviously, in order for the Lord to judge on this matter, His commandments must still be in effect.
Otherwise, how is He judging on a commandment that He supposedly abolished? Are we expecting Him to
unabolish it right before He returns? Of course not! It was never abolished in the first place.

In addition, if God no longer cared about what we eat, then the instructions to Gentiles in Acts 15:20 to not
eat meat sacrificed to idols, not eat animals that have been strangled, and to not drink blood would not
make any sense, as these are also commands straight out of God’s law (Leviticus 17:12-16)(Deut. 32:17).
Why are we suggesting that Leviticus 11 was abolished? Is Leviticus 11 still Scripture? If so, then it is still
"instructions in righteousness."

Remember:

ALL (not some) scripture is given by inspiration of God.

ALL (not some) scripture is profitable for doctrine.

ALL (not some) scripture is for rebuking and correction

ALL (not some) scripture is for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

God would not contradict His Word in multiple ways, or even once, and the above are just several
examples. Peter knows that there has to be a different interpretation. What apparently seems so blatantly
obvious to many in the interpretation of the vision certainly was not so obvious to the one (Peter) receiving
the vision. Peter knew his scripture and knew the vision must have meant something else.

So what did the vision mean?

3) In verse 19, we find that the meaning of the vision is related to the three men coming to visit him.

Ac 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
The Spirit is telling Peter right here that the meaning of the vision that he was pondering at that very
moment has something to do with the three men at his door. That is a far cry from making unclean animals
suitable for food, but let’s continue.

4) In verse 28, Scripture actually even defines for us the meaning of the vision. This is very helpful for
those inclined to project their own interpretation into the meaning of the vision. If Scripture gives us the
interpretation, then perhaps that is the interpretation right? Sometimes things are simply that easy when it
comes to His Word.

Acts 10:28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or
go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

5) According to verse 28 the whole vision is about the Gentiles (the nations) being made uncommon (holy)
and clean before God because of their new faith. The Jews were being shown that this is indeed possible
instead of surprising (astonishing)(45) as many Jews either considered Gentiles unsaveable or that the
Gentiles had to do certain commandments first, such as circumcision. The group that is astonished that
Gentiles could be saved in faith was the sect of the "Circumcision Party" that happened to also be believers.
The "Circumcision Party" entertains much false doctrine surrounding a works based salvation model
(Galatians) and incorporates doctrines and commandments of men (Mark 7) contrary to God's Word (not
eating with Gentiles). Even though this particular group of the "Circumcision" were believers it is clear
from their astonished reaction that they also held on to much of the false doctrine common with their
groups theology.

Peter was requested to stay there a few days (48), implying that he was to offer them instructions on how to
live according to the Scriptures and God’s ways since they were just saved. Peter would not have brought
them to salvation without teaching them (making disciples) God's Word instructing them how to live. He
would have taught them how to pursue and practice righteousness.

6) We should also keep in mind that unclean animals, such as dogs and pigs, etc, often symbolically
represent the nations or Gentiles in the first century. If we want to understand the means to interpret the
vision that is consistent with the interpretation scripture already gave us, then we should consider
incorporating that understanding into the vision.

7) Peter was told in the vision to “kill (sacrifice) and eat (13),” which is terminology commonly related to
the sacrificial system. This is why Peter also refers to the animals as “common” (ritually unholy) instead
just “unclean” (not food). Peter is familiar with such Scriptural terminology because Peter knows his
scripture. (Leviticus 10:10 (tame’); 1 Sam. 21:5).

Notice God focuses on the fact that what He has cleaned we should also not call “common” (ritually
unholy). This language is consistent with the language priests would use to determine if something was
ritually pure (holy/uncommon) or not (unholy/common). We should also not fail to incorporate this into the
understanding of the vision. It would be a mistake to think that the vision is only relating to the subject
clean and unclean animals when clearly the vision is not. The vision also makes mention of common and
uncommon (profane). Remember, in our faith, we are to offer ourselves as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1),
and in order to do so, we must first be made ritually holy (not common) by the blood of Y'shua (Jesus) in
our faith.

The three tallits (4 cornered garment) filled with uncleanness is the three men at the door filled with
unclean animals. The human skin is likened to tallit with 4 corners - two corners of the head, two corners of
the beard:

Lev 19:27 You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shall you mar the corners of your beard.

A 4 cornered garment we wear requires tzitzit (tassles)(Num 15:38-39)(Deut. 22:12) which we find
mentioned in:
Ezekiel 8:3 He stretched out the form of a Hand, and took me by a tzitzit of my head; and the Spirit lifted
me up between earth and heaven, and brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the north
gate of the inner Court, where the seat of the image of jealousy was, which provokes to jealousy.

Job 10:11 You have clothed me with skin and flesh, And knit me together with bones and sinews.

Once we get the vision of the human skin being a four (4) cornered garment that has four corners with four
(4) tzitzit, then the vision of the three (3) sheets representing the three (3) men becomes that much more
clear.

God commands us to wear tzitzit at our “four corners.” If we apply what we understand from the above we
learn that those who desire to keep God’s commandments set themselves apart (make themselves holy) by
doing God’s commandments. Peter’s vision is detailing how Gentiles can be made set apart (made holy)
when once they were common/profane (not holy). This is why in verse 15 God emphesizes “thou shall not
call them common” which is clearly teaching that the opposite will now be true, they are set apart/holy.

Num 15:38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of
their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of
blue:

Num 15:39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe (tzitzit), that ye may look upon it, and remember all the
commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes,
after which ye use to go a whoring:

Num 15:40 That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy (set apart) unto your God.

8) Knowing and incorporating all of the above Peter apparently figured this all out by connecting all of
these dots and thus realizing that the Gentiles have also now been “made holy” (cleansed/ koinov) through
their faith. Now Peter knew all of the above so he was able to conclude the real interpretation of the vision.

This particular vision is one of the rare instances in which Scripture gives us the actual
interpretation! We can thank Peter for giving us the meaning (from the Spirit) otherwise we might
have concluded that all animals are now clean because of our lack of knowledge of God’s Word.

“But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”

The interpretation was NOT:

“But God has shown me that all unclean animals are now clean.”

Every component in the vision has something to do with converted Gentiles not being unclean.

Yet many still manage to misunderstand the meaning of the vision and then teach others to misunderstand
it. We need to study to show ourselves approved and test all things and only hold on to what is good. Just
because a popular Bible commentary states an interpretation does not mean it is a valid interpretation. Why
not go with the interpretation the Bible gives us twice, once in chapter 10 and once in chapter 11? The
interpretation Peter gives us in no way resembles the interpretation mainstream commentary offers us.
Obviously that is a problem.

We clearly have two options here, God’s interpretation of the vision, or modern theology’s interpretation of
the vision. We can examine the text from a first century perspective to understand why Scripture gave us
that interpretation, or we can ignore the interpretation Scripture gave us, the surrounding context, and the
first century Jewish perspective. Instead many have chose to change the interpretation to man’s unfounded
commentary based on nothing but fantasy and doctrinal bias. Again, just to be clear, Scripture gives us the
interpretation. It certainly makes no sense to suppose another interpretation that contradicts the
interpretation that Scripture clearly gives us (28).

However, if we want to continue to use this vision as evidence that God is now comfortable with us eating
things that He has not set aside for us to eat, then all we have to do is ignore the surrounding context,
ignore the fact that there is no discussion anywhere about all animals now being made clean, and pretend
that scripture does not give us the interpretation in verse 28. Employing such methodology of scriptural
studies should not be considered sound hermeneutics even by the most relaxed and liberal Biblical scholar.

Why does God even care what we eat?

Perhaps one might consider examining the scientific research on the physical differences between clean and
unclean animals. It would be quickly noticed that the toxin levels in unclean animals are off the charts, and
often prone to disease and parasites, whereas in clean animals such things are nearly naturally non-existent.
There is a loving reason God stated that he does not want us to eat such things, and the premise of that
reason still holds true today. Unclean animals did not suddenly become healthier for us because of the
cross. In fact, it appears that unclean animals are actually designed to clean toxins out of an environment to
keep clean animals healthier to eat. Should it be a surprise that God gave His commandments to His people
for their benefit? All are encouraged to do their due diligence on the science of the clean verses unclean
animals. The results will certainly astound you.

By us mistakenly concluding that God has made all animals clean and thus declared as food, we are stating
that God could now care less about what we put in our body (His temple) and that the resulting ill health
effects because of increased toxin consumption is something that God suddenly feels is now just fine for
His people. That does not make sense does it?

Or perhaps we should let Scripture interpret Scripture, discover that God is smarter than, and realize that
He knows what is best for us.

If it is still difficult to understand the context and interpretation of the vision that scripture provides to us,
Acts 11 repeats the story for us again, yielding the exact same conclusion by Peter. The irony is that even
the ever problematic stubborn and corrupt Circumcision Party grasps the interpretation of he vision as
evidenced in verse 18:

Acts 11:1-18 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received
the word of God. And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him,
saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”

But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and
in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners;
and it came to me. When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild
beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’
But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth. ’ But the
voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ Now this was
done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. At that very moment, three men stood before
the house where I was, having been sent to me from Caesarea. Then the Spirit told me to go with them,
doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. And he
told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for
Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be
saved.’ And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I
remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be
baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed
on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also
granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”
Through the Words that Peter spoke, which was God's plan from the beginning, answering the man's
prayer, God’s Word saved the Gentiles. They were made clean and uncommon just like the vision foretold.
Notice the lack of ham and lobster on the dinner table that some like to insert into the text, and more
importantly, note the lack of discussion anywhere about God's dietary instructions being abolished, even in
the midst of the often legalistic Circumcision Party. If the vision was truly teaching against Leviticus 11
then there would have been at least some mention of this interpretation. Embarrisingly there is not one
mention, neither in Scripure or other writings. This would have been front page first century news. The
Jewish world would have been flipped upside down. However, there is nothing but awkward silence.

Like Peter, we need to stay grounded in the Word so we do not allow ourselves to be carried away by error.

The vision of unclean animals representing Gentiles and then becoming holy/set apart is not unique. The
prophets already spoke of this using the exact same language!

Ho 2:18 And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of
heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle
out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.

Ho 2:23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained
mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art
my God.

God reveals His plan to the prophets first (Amos 3:7). Peter was not receiving anything new, just
something that was already established as true.

How much easier can God make this for His people that study His Word instead of the corrupted doctrines
of man?

The vision teaches Gentiles are coming into covenant with God which is in agreement with this prophecy
that uses the exact same language. The nations in Scripture are referred to as unclean animals. The vision
that the Spirit gave Peter is consistent with the language Scripture uses to discuss the process of Gentiles
coming into God's nation of Israel. This is the same interpretation of the vision that we are given in Acts 10
and Acts 11 as Ho 2. Peter's vision is nothing new, it is just new to Peter. There is nothing in Peter's vision
about all animals now being clean and suitable for food, unless we insert it ourselves.

If we do insert such an interpretation into the text ourselves we have to ask ourselves the question:

Why?

If we insert an interpretation and context into scripture that does not exist are we doing this to supposedly
understand and teach God’s Word better?

Or

Is it that we believe and teach a different interpretation for Peter’s vision than the interpretation Peter
(through God) offers us not just once, but twice, just to support a law abolishing paradigm that we want to
hold on to because it feels more comfortable to our flesh and desire for ourselves?

Ask yourself the hard questions. Ask others. Ask the Word. Test your faith. Challenge yourself. Test
everything.

119 Ministries
www.TestEverything.net