Ordinarily, I would present view #1 as the traditional, conservative view; however, in this case, it makes more sense to present the non-traditional, liberal view first. Before presenting the two views and my opinion, I will quote the text of Peter's vision to set the stage for this debate.

"He fell into a trance, 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: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven" (Acts 10:10-16).

VIEW #1

Does this mean that under the New Testament, we can eat freely of all animals? Supporters of the non-traditional view would argue the negative. They contend, "Why would God allow mankind to eat these abominations after forbidding them for so many centuries?"

When asked to eat of this collection of abominable animals, Peter said, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean." Some argue that his response alone proves that Jesus had not changed the law concerning "clean" and "unclean" animals during His ministry. Could Peter have forgotten? Remember that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to His apostles to "bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26).

Furthermore, Gentiles were told not to eat meat sacrificed to idols or with the blood still contained in it, which was forbidden in the old law (Exodus 34:15; Leviticus 17:14). After Peter's vision, the apostles decreed this in a letter to the Gentiles. "Abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication" (Acts 15:23-31).

Notice that the letter did not mention "unclean" animals. That is likely because the Gentiles offered only "clean" animals to the Greek gods. In their ritual to Jupiter, the priests offered oxen, which are considered "clean" animals (Acts 14:13).

Apparently, the early church found it necessary to suggest that the Gentiles abstain from meat sacrificed to idols. This practice may have tempted them back into their previous pagan lifestyle. Paul was concerned about this, so he exhorted the stronger brethren: "For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (1 Corinthians 8:10-11).

The non-traditional view asserts that God updated the old law in this case because it would have kept the Gentiles in an unclean state. Peter said, "God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Gentiles were given equal status with the Jews through the Gospel and were free to interact with and marry each other now that they worshipped the same God. Because of this fact, eating meat sacrificed to idols no longer held meaning to the Jews; however, newly converted Gentiles abstained until they were spiritually strong enough to overcome their pagan background (Acts 15:29).

This view concludes that Peter's vision was solely to reveal the equality of Gentiles and Jews. Since Peter responded to God that he had never consumed "unclean" animals, this proves that Jesus had never changed the law concerning "clean" and "unclean" animals. The non-traditional view contends that New Testament Christians should not eat "unclean" animals.

VIEW #2

The traditional view maintains that Peter's vision should be taken at face value. Although his vision does symbolize the equality of Gentiles with Jews, it also proves that all animals are free for our consumption. God "hath cleansed" all animals to "kill and eat."

Peter's statement, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean," indeed does prove that Jesus had not changed the law on diet during His ministry. He did not change that law during his ministry because He lived under the law and perfectly obeyed it. What He taught in His ministry had nothing to do with Peter's vision except for the fact that Peter was still "religiously" holding on to a portion of the old law.

Notice that God tells Peter three times to eat the animals. Peter refuses each time. God then tells him he can eat whatever God calls clean. God does not make positive points by using wrong illustrations. God would not tell Peter to go to the Gentiles by using an illustration that would have caused Peter to sin. God was illustrating to Peter that just as "unclean" food can now be eaten, Gentiles are now sanctified through the Gospel.

MY OPINION

There is no doubt that Peter's vision had a symbolic meaning. I believe that God was primarily using the dietary laws of the Old Testament as an illustration to Peter to drive home the point that the Gospel was also for the "unclean" Gentiles. Notice the very next verse: "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" (Acts 10:17).

While Peter pondered the meaning of the vision, the Spirit came and gave Peter the answer: "Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them" (v 19-20). Cornelius "was warned from God by an holy angel" to send for Peter and to "hear words" of him (v 22). The Gentiles were represented in Peter's vision by the "common or unclean" animals. I believe that God was using symbolism to reverse Jewish prejudice by convincing Peter that God can "cleanse" the common and that the Gentiles were equal in the kingdom of God.

Peter told his fellow Jews what God had taught him through his experience. "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. … Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:28, 34). Peter's vision revealed that all Gentiles were now clean and equal in the kingdom of God. "There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all" (Colossians 3:11).

I certainly agree that God would not have used an erroneous vision or parable to teach Peter a lesson. J. W. McGarvey also agrees, "It should be observed that the parables of Jesus never introduce fictitious conditions, nor do they anywhere violate the order and course of nature. It is hardly possible that he could have made this an exception to his rule" (McGarvey, J. W. The Fourfold Gospel. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Foundation. 514).

Since God only uses truthful visions and parables, I must conclude that the secondary meaning of Peter's vision was to illustrate that the law of "clean" and "unclean" animals was "blotted out" with the rest of the old law.

The old law, written by the finger of God, was "blotted out." Jesus "took away the old order, so that he might put the new order in its place" (Hebrews 10:9). "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Romans 15:4).

We now have "a better covenant" (Hebrews 8:6). "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Hebrews 9:16-17). The new law began at the death of Christ; therefore, the old law was no longer in affect when Peter had his vision. It seems that his vision supports that all animals have been approved for food; however, I believe that modern "improvements" have rendered meat a poor food choice. Look at the statistics below to see the prevailing opinion.

Read the Ask the Nutritionist column to learn more about how God intended us to eat. Also, check out the archived articles from the Article of the Month. Check out my recipe page, too!

Kenneth E. Loy, Jr., CN