Putting It to Bed
And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” Acts 11:2-3 NASB
Uncircumcised men – How many times have you heard that Peter’s vision on the rooftop was God’s sign that we no longer have to follow kosher requirements? Apparently, interpreters who suggest that the vision was about food haven’t bothered to read what Peter himself says about his vision. After Peter goes to the home of Cornelius and realizes that God has ushered in the Gentiles, certain men come to him complaining that he ate with the uncircumcised. You can read “Gentiles” for this Greek term akrobystian because the clear implication is that Jews and Jewish proselytes were circumcised and Gentiles were not. Of course, Cornelius fits that description. He was a Gentile. According to the interpretation of these circumcised men, no respectable Jew would ever share table fellowship with the uncircumcised. That was like eating with the devil. Pagans were not to be included in close fellowship.
Now, if Peter thought that his vision was about food, he would never have used his experience as a teaching opportunity about what God was doing with people. But that is exactly what he does. In order to justify his table fellowship with uncircumcised men, he explains the vision on the rooftop. What? Do you mean that Peter himself realized his vision was about people, namely Gentiles, and not about food? Yes, apparently that’s what Peter understood, not when it occurred but certainly after his encounter with Cornelius. Everything that Peter relates to these objectors in the next ten verses is an explanation about the connection between the vision and the Gentiles. There is not a single word about rejection of the Torah dietary regulations. Furthermore, after Peter’s explanation, the text tells us that these objectors ceased their argument and glorified God because God granted favor to the Gentiles. In other words, they accepted Peter’s explanation of the vision. It wasn’t ever about food. It was about people.
End of story. If Peter tells us that his vision had nothing to do with food, and if the detractors accept this explanation as the truth, then why in the world do we continue to claim that this vision sets aside food laws? In my view, there are only two possible explanations for this deliberate misreading of the text. First, we apply our theological categories to the text regardless of what it actually says. This was the approach of the early church fathers who nearly universally rejected the dietary laws in order to drive a wedge between Judaism and Christianity despite what Scripture says. Or secondly, we have heard the doctrine for so long that we no longer question it nor do we care to question it because we really don’t want to change what we eat.
So it comes down to this. Either Peter was mistaken or we are. Which do you suppose it more likely?
Topical Index: uncircumcised men, food, kosher, Acts 11:2-3
I agree and disagree. It is about people; that’s pretty clear. I also think the vision that was given to Peter says that these people, with their different dietary customs, were acceptable to God since they were granted by God “the repentance that leads to life.” Otherwise, why use the vision of unclean food at all?
Peter made the link as follows:
God said in His word that certain foods are unclean. He never said that people are unclean.
Therefore: I should not call unclean which God did not call unclean and I can go with these messengers from Cornelius and start preaching the Gospel to Gentiles as well.
Peter was an observant Jew. He prayed at the time of the sacrifices in the Temple. [a Jewish tradition] It would never even have crossed his mind that God was trying to tell him that he could now eat anything he wanted. It was not about accepting the dietary customs of the Gentiles.
Once you come in the community of God, you follow His rules. And one of the rules is, don’t eat abominable flesh of swine, mice etc [Is 65 & 66]
God uses the vision because of its enormous impact on Peter. He is shocked to think God would overturn any Torah commandment, but then he sees that he has done the unthinkable with the Gentiles. It is simply not an endorsement of lawless (i.e., anti-Torah) behavior.
Skip,
We cannot prove a biblical point by omission, but when something is included, we need to keep our ears tuned in. Food is mentioned here in this verse as a part of the issue, so I think we should not totally dismiss its importance in the issue of today’s dietary restrictions.
My question is about this verse: (At Jerusalem Council, James, brother of Jesus, issues verdict on what Gentiles must adhere to of Jewish Laws) “I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.”
These are from the Noahide Law, not Law of Moses, right? I’ve heard that these restrictions mentioned related to idolatry practices, but these would have also been issues that would have offended Jews and separated Jews and Gentiles in their united fellowship of taking the Lord’s Supper (dining) together.
My questions to SKIP MOEN regarding the Acts 15 verses:
(1) Do you think we Christians (today) are under the Mosaic law or the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) Noahide restrictive law?
(2) And should we Christians today abide by these Jewish laws so that we can maintain fellowship with Jews in our own culture? Is that the motivation for you?
Thanks for clarification.
Blessings,
Gaynor
No, these are not from the so-called Noahide laws. These are common pagan polytheistic practices that the Gentiles who are coming into fellowship must give up. That’s all. They were all widely acknowledged and practiced in the Roman Empire. In fact, they were so widely practiced that the CHURCH allowed them after the 2nd century in order to get more converts than Judaism. Nothing to do with Moses or Noah. Everything to do with Diana, Zeus, and the fertility cults.
As for application today, the motivation has nothing to do with fellowship with Jews (although that is an additional benefit). The motivation is that these “laws” are God’s instructions for living and reflect His character. Do you need any additional reason to keep them?
Skip, my question (not a challenge–trying to learn here) is based on this passage in Acts 15:5. The question at hand is if this is accurate or not: “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” If the restrictions listed in the Acts 15:19-20 passages were the Jerusalem Council’s answer for new Gentile converts to “Christianity” & the Gentiles were only told to avoid four specific pagan practices (and the Council’s answer states specifically that the Gentiles were NOT bound to the law of Moses), what is relevant to us Christians today, and why? It seems these Acts passages deal with what is relevant for Gentile converts at a crucial time of conversion and convergence. Could these listed restrictions only apply to that particular culture who were demonstrating behavior that was idolatrous? Obviously, we are to avoid sexual immorality, based on other New Testament scripture, yet the other three restrictions listed seem to be specific to that culture and what the early church was facing at that time–descriptive rather than prescriptive possibly?
Skip, I’d like to know your scriptural premise for Gentiles adhering to the Mosaic law and, specifically, to what do you adhere (Sabbath, dietary, etc.)? I’ve really been thinking a lot about this lately, but this verse keeps coming to my mind: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1).
Blessings,
Gaynor
Totally the way I read it, too.
I remember when I was struggling with kosher eating. I sat looking out my dining room window at our old family dog sleeping on the patio and the Lord said “Would you eat Napoleon (our dog’s name)?” and I responded “of course not”. Then He said, “why not?” and I answered “because he is not food.”
It isn’t that dog isn’t edible — I live in area where 35 years ago we had issues with Hmong immigrants and dogs. Nobody dies from eating dog, it is capable of being eaten and digested, as are pigs, shellfish etc. But every Jew knew was that these creatures were not created as food for human beings.
At the time of Peter’s vision, every good Jewish boy also knew that Gentiles were not chosen for fellowship with God — but Peter understood from his vision that God said He was now removing Gentiles from that which was common – go share His Word. And just to be sure there was no mistake: the vision appeared three times and then there were three men knocking on the door.
When the Church still thinks this applies to food, it’s because they are not reading it in context of the whole event. It is a cursory reading to prove the Greek point they want to prove — “I can eat anything I want, whatever is good in our own sight.” They don’t even realize that reading it that way would have excluded Gentiles from hearing the good news right at the beginning.
Thank God Peter got it.
Well then, perhaps someone will explain to me Acts 10: 9-16. Especially verse 13, “Arise, Peter, kill and eat.” Now that does not seem to be about people.
When it comes to ‘animals in a vision’,… I have a difficult time thinking of an example in the Bible where the animals ACTUALLY represented animals. Perhaps a good question would be:
Are there any other places in the bible where unclean animals represent pagan nations?
With this in mind, it’s actually NOT very biblical to interpret the unclean animals as ACTUALLY representing unclean animals. Conversely, there are many many examples of ‘unclean animals in a vision’ as representing the ‘pagan’ nations.
Hi Gabe,
Nations are made up of people/s, and in Daniel 7 and Rev 13, the beasts mentioned are of kingdoms
representing the state of apostasy by following false teachings.
Rev 17:4 the woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup filled with abominations of her whoring and on her forehead a name written, a secret/mystery: BABEL the Great The Mother of the Whores and of The Abominations of the Earth.
She was drunk with the blood of the saints (those who keep Torah) and the blood of the witnesses of Yahushua, the true Meshiach.
Babel, or Babylon is a mindset, not a nation per se, but a nation made up of people all over the earth, that are into idolatry of sorts, and not followers of YHWH’s laws and Kingdom/House rules/protocols of what is clean and what is unclean in HIS sight, not ours, not according to men’s interpretations.
HIS Word stands through all eternity, He is not double-minded, He changes not.
That is so very re-assuring! HE is the solid Rock of ages! Amein! HalleluYAH!
I hear ya. I’m not trying to demonize any nations/nationality. Are you saying that you think of “nations” as being different from “kingdoms”? One more representative of the people, and one more representative of the false teachings?
Conversely, there are many many examples of ‘unclean animals in a vision’ as representing the ‘pagan’ nations, you say in your post, Gabe.
It wasn’t clear in what I’ve posted, I think.
I meant, by nations, it is referring to peoples around the earth, and not a specific nation, as in a nationality, but, a group of people with a certain mindset of falsehood not according to YHWH’s truth. It is a Babylonian mindset. Babel is a mindset of confusion, not a geographical country. It is a kingdom of false, deceptive beliefs.
Good inquiry, John Lightfoot. Who was Peter? What sort of fellow was he? At the last of the book of John, Yeshua asks Peter–3 times–“Do you love Me?” And He tells Peter to “Feed My sheep, feed My lambs.” We know Yeshua isn’t giving the care of a literal flock of sheep to Peter. They both know the subject is people. But the lesson is given to Peter obliquely. This vision in Acts–again, an object lesson given obliquely, perhaps? Maybe Peter is a man who needs to see things from a different angle in order to “get it.”
A few months ago I thought I could put this issue to bed during our Friday night Torah study. It seems so clear in the scriptures and I felt this is a great lesson in how wrong Christian doctrine can be. By using this simple example I had hoped I could help others feel more comfortable with re-thinking everything. Sadly, one older couple fell into your second category of explanations. They have heard the doctrine for so long that they no longer question it nor do they care to question it. I assume part of it was because they really didn’t want to change what they eat. But I believe the sadder reality is, like many others, they really don’t want to change what they believe. They are clinging to the inaccurate and worn out argument of “grace” vs. “works”. I have not been able to help them come to the realization that the Torah is a beautiful code of conduct for His “whole” family.
John Lightfoot,
How is it going?
Grace given by YHWH to the Gentiles is not based on what they eat! BUT, when they accept the invitation of YHWH to come into the kingdom through Yeshua, they take/put on the instructions of the King found in the Torah.
We see this at the Council at Jerusalem: the poured out Spirit on the Gentiles is YHWH’s finger of approval on the Gentiles and therefore the community also – the four commands and fences given by James to the Gentiles to indicate their repentance and breaking away from the pagan temples (these four were non-negotiable) – the Gentiles continual instructions every Sabbath as Moses is read.
~ but the Word of the LORD endures forever..
What’s it all about? (Alfie?)
Arise, Peter, “kill and eat..” – and Peter’s reply was?
Peter’s response was “No, impossible.” Why? -What was so (disgustingly?) impossible about it?
Here are two words (only two) that will never “coexist peacefully..” – No (and) LORD.
~ For if (or better,-since) you (sir or m’am or Peter) call Me, “LORD” – why do you not do the things I ask of you?. ~
May I pursue this further?
Is He LORD?
and further still..
Is He (my) LORD?
and to press on..
Is He yours as well?
Is He LORD of the Jews? – AND – LORD of the Gentiles?
LORD of diet and of days? LORD of time and eternity? LORD of the living AND the dead?
LORD of every thought and action?,
LORD to send and Lord to stay?;
LORD in speaking, writing, giving?,
LORD in all things to obey?;
(Yes!) both now, and evermore to be.
He IS LORD.
We didn’t “vote” Him in, and none can “vote” Him out. Whether or not we realize it, or recognize it, reject it or rejoice in it- He remains, (and will remain)- LORD of all.
Crown Him with many crowns, the Lamb upon His throne.
Hark! How the heavenly anthem drowns all music but its own.
Awake, my soul, and sing of Him who died for thee,
And hail Him as thy matchless King through all eternity.
Crown Him the virgin’s Son, the God incarnate born,
Whose arm those crimson trophies won which now His brow adorn;
Fruit of the mystic rose, as of that rose the stem;
The root whence mercy ever flows, the Babe of Bethlehem.
Crown Him the Son of God, before the worlds began,
And ye who tread where He hath trod, crown Him the son of man;
Who every grief hath known that wrings the human breast,
And takes and bears them for His own, that all in Him may rest.
Crown Him the LORD of life, who triumphed over the grave,
And rose victorious in the strife for those He came to save.
His glories now we sing, who died, and rose on high,
Who died eternal life to bring, and lives that Death may die.
Crown Him the LORD of peace, whose power a scepter sways
From pole to pole, that wars may cease, – and all be prayer and praise.
His reign shall know no end, and round His nail-pierced feet
Fair flowers of paradise extend their fragrance ever sweet.
Crown Him the LORD of love, behold His hands and side,
Those wounds, yet visible above, in beauty glorified.
No angel in the sky can fully bear that sight,
But downward bends his burning eye at mysteries so bright.
Crown Him the LORD of Heaven, enthroned in worlds above,
Crown Him the King to Whom is given the wondrous Name of Love.
Crown Him with many crowns, as thrones before Him fall;
Crown Him, ye kings, with many crowns, for He is King of all.
Crown Him the LORD of lords, who over all doth reign,
Who once on earth, the incarnate Word, for ransomed sinners slain,
Now lives in realms of light, where saints with angels sing
Their songs before Him day and night, their God, Redeemer, King.
Crown Him the LORD of years, the Potentate of time,
Creator of the rolling spheres, ineffably sublime.
All hail, Redeemer, hail! For Thou has died for me;
Thy praise and glory shall not fail throughout eternity.
~ His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns ~ (Revelation 19:12)
“When you sort it out Alfie” (Alfie)
How was Peter eating ‘Kosher” while eating with the gentiles? We can wander off into the quicksand of ‘assumption’ and say that perhaps they prepared a ‘kosher’ meal just for him, or that he brought his own or some such, but that begs the question of whether or not he was ‘sharing food’ as a guest would or did everyone there ‘bring their own’?
Love your lessons, Skip. Thanks for keepin’ em coming. I just read your recent series on the Trinity doctrine and appreciate your insights. I emailed a friend who studies contextually (to first-century Judaism), and here was his insightful yet simple response: “I like to think of God as one but three roles to help us understand His oneness and our humaness in Him. So instead of Trinity I like the term Tri-unity. Three aspects of the One God in perfect community, in perfect unity. The analogy that helps me the most is I am one person. But I am a husband, a father, and a son. But, I am still one person. I am a different when I am a husband and different when I am a father and different when I am a son. It matters most to whom I am relating, but I am still just one person.” I can easily explain THAT to someone about God’s nature and relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit, which is why I like it.
In Eugene Peterson’s EAT THIS BOOK (fantastic book), he talks about how the KJV turned the biblical text into classical literature rather than the common language in which it was originally written. And sometimes I think we can analyze the Text so much that we get too complicated with its meaning. All the while there is a simplistic, understandable (even to the child) kind of explanation. At the end of the day, God wants us to KNOW Him, and His revelations are always intended to unravel mysteries, not to twist them up where we can’t understand His nature through His word. I think you alluded to this point in one of the Trinity posts, but it really is important to read the biblical text with that as a foundational understanding. If an explanation/interpretation seems too mysterious and out of our human mind to understand, it probably has something to do with the culture and intended audience with which we are unfamiliar, or it would make total sense. Thanks for all you do to challenge, enlighten, inspire and teach us all! I LOVE and APPRECIATE your work & diligence, Skip!
Well put. Thanks!
Gaynor,
Your comments have inspired me to make a few points of clarification that I pray will be helpful to some especially to newbies to Skip’s forum. There is much needless confusion about which laws apply to followers of Messiah. Some confusion is understandable considering the misunderstandings of Paul’s letters by theologians along with the delusional insights coming from some Jewish rabbis
Every Christian needs to understand the fundamental fact that the New Testament is a spiritual magnification of what we find in the Tanakh – with Torah being the foundation. (Read Yahshua’s words in Matthew chapter 5)
This notion of separating “Law” into Law of God, Law of Moses and Noahide laws is utter nonsense!
All true spiritual law is from God. YHVH is way too smart to delegate creation of any spiritual laws to humanity, even to humble men of God such as Moses and Noah. Why do you think Yahshua was so angry at the Scribes and Pharisees for creating laws or adding stuff to Torah? – traditions of men He called them We have a God who is ” the same, yesterday, today and forever.” The laws that He personally taught to Adam in the Garden are the same laws that were taught by Noah and Moses. God does not change. He does not need to – He is Perfect in all His Ways! And these are the same laws that Yahshua taught when He walked the earth. And they are the same laws that He will have us help Him enforce when He restores God’s Theocracy at beginning of His glorious Millennial reign. The Law of Moses IS God’s LAW – period! Its really simple as that. The book of Hebrews adequately covers the necessary changes to law due to Messiah’s “once for all” sacrifice
The idea that Torah is for Jews only is, as you might expect, a Jewish theological construct! Then the rabbis say that the only laws that apply to the non Jew are the 7 precepts affecting the children of Noah found in Genesis chapter 9. How convenient! How exclusivist! How pernicious! How silly! Ever wonder why God allowed a large multitude of non Israelites to leave Egypt with “His chosen people”? Could there be a lesson there for the Jews along with the rest of us? Why did Paul tell us that Yahshua “had broken down the dividing wall of hostility” in Ephesians chapter 2, verse 14? Then Paul really nailed it in his letter to the Galatians:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; FOR YOU ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS.” (Gal 3:28) Wow!
Those in the Messianic community with a misguided understanding of Judaism have a few lessons to learn: Judaism does not have the words of Salvation. They are a deceived group – Paul said that “God gave them a spirit of stupor …..down to this very day.” (Rom 11:8) This is consistent with the words of Yahshua. In perhaps His last warning message before they set Him up to be killed, He told them that because of their lack of righteousness, they were going to be stripped:
“Therefore, I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and give to a nation producing the fruit of it.” (Matt 21:43) Because of their refusal to acknowledge Yahshua as Messaiah and “bow their knee to Him”, many Jews will miss out on the Millennium. So much for exclusivism!
But, of course, that is not end of the story. In Romans, chapters 9, 10, and 11 Paul tells us that not alone Jews, but all the rest of the reprobate tribes of Israel will be SAVED (Rom 11:26)
“”The Deliverer (Yahshua) will come from Zion, He will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” (Rom 11:26)
Last word, there is much we can learn from the Rabbinical community. There is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater! In Paul’s letter to the Romans there is much wisdom on how to keep a balance as followers of Messiah.
John, may I add an Amein and thumbs up to your post. 🙂
Shalom!
Indeed! Thank you for sharing this, Gaynor.
In Hebraic mindset, it is all about functions, and relationship. That was a very good example!
Shalom!
John Walsh, thanks for your reply. I agree with most of your comments, but I have some additional comments & questions that I’d appreciate your thoughts on:
(1) Although God is unchangeable, it seems from Scripture that God’s revelation is progressive, such as the mysteries made known to us that were hidden from past generations (i.e.Eph 1:3-6, 1:9, 3:3; Col 1:27; Ro 16:25-26). So, although God does not change and His word never changes, Scripture points to progressive revelation and enlightenment for believers. Even Jesus claims that further revelation will be given through the Holy Spirit after His departure (John 16:13-15) and that He will teach His disciples more things in the future, things that they could not then bear when He walked the earth with them” (John 16:12).
What James reveals to the Jewish leaders regarding the Council’s decision about the Gentile converts would be as God-inspired as the rest of the Bible, right? God would be speaking to men through the Holy Spirit, His own words (Mark 13:10-11). Could the Council’s answer be progressive information that God gives to this Council regarding the New Covenant? If there are some fundamental changes from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant (such as no more animal sacrifices), we have to discern what other Covenant changes occur after Christ’s death and resurrection. These two verses address some of those Covenant issues:
“Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you” (Galatians 5:2).
“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:16,17).
Would love your further thoughts.
I’d also like your input about a verse from your previous post: “all the rest of the reprobate tribes of Israel will be SAVED (Rom 11:26)
I’ve pondered the meaning of this verse for a while. Specifically, to whom does this verse below refer? All Jews that are alive at the time of Jesus’ second coming? All Jews who ever believed in God, even the Jews who have rejected Christ? The Jews/Gentiles that have accepted Christ as Messiah–the One Body of Christ? And what version Bible are you using for this verse? It’s different than I’ve seen. This is probably a dumb question, but what are the “reprobate tribes of Israel”? I’ve seen the verse read “And so all Israel will be saved.” WHO IS “ALL ISRAEL” (or from your version “THE REPROBATE TRIBES OF ISRAEL”)?
Thanks so much, John! I truly LOVE this engagement of dialogue…I’m so hungry for it because so few where I live (Houston, TX) know ANYTHING about studying from the Hebraic perspective.
Blessings,
Gaynor
Gaynor,
Thanks for your kind words in response to my post.
You ask some wonderful additional questions that I will have a shot at responding to. But I will probably not be able to get to them till Shabbat. So be patient for a few days!
Shalom