Stephen
Terry, Director
The
Ministry of Peter
Commentary
for the August 11, 2018 Sabbath School Lesson
“The
voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has
made clean.” Acts 10:15, NIV
The Book of Acts was problematic in the early church.
The Jews in general and many of the apostles themselves were convinced that
conversion to Judaism must first take place and then one could become a
follower of Jesus. It is easy to understand why they might believe this for
Jesus was a Jew, born of Jewish parents, and he regularly attended synagogue on
the Sabbath.[i]
The apostles, whom Jesus had chosen, also were Jews and followed the same
practice, including Paul, apostle to the Gentiles.[ii] A very solid argument for
this position could be found in the Bible. The covenant of circumcision was
established to identify who belonged to God and who did not. This was to be an
everlasting covenant[iii]
established by a God who, according to the prophet Malachi, does not change.[iv] Given these principles,
the requirement to become a Jew in order to be a Christian seems irrefutable.
The argument is so powerful that even today, Malachi is often cited as the
basis for any number of current doctrinal practices. How difficult then it must
have been for Peter to reconcile that foundation of belief with the vision he
received in Joppa.
Part of what it meant to be a Jew was to adhere to the
special dietary provisions that recognized a distinction between what was clean
and unclean. Many of those requirements are enumerated in Leviticus,
particularly in chapter 11.[v] However, that list,
although fundamental, is not exhaustive. It is of interest to note that the
Pentateuch teaches that this distinguishing between clean and unclean predates
considerably the rise of Judaism, as the account of the animals gathered for
Noah’s ark makes a distinction between clean and unclean.[vi] Some have felt that this
reflects a later emendation to harmonize with Leviticus, and things like this
gave rise to the Historical Critical approach to the Bible. Since the account
in chapter 7 differs in this regard from the command in chapter 6 to gather two
of each kind of animal, one might see how this could be a possibility. But
Peter made no such critical examination of scripture. He only understood that,
as a Jew, there were some things that he could not eat and others that he
could.
While praying on the rooftop in Joppa and smelling the
meal being prepared below, the vision of unclean animals appeared before him
along with a voice commanding him to kill and eat them. Perhaps he felt that
this was coming to him as a temptation since he was hungry. He may have remembered
the story of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness. Famished after many days of
fasting, he was tempted by the devil to turn stones into bread. Just as Christ
refused to give in to such a blatant attempt to tempt him at a moment of
weakness, Peter also resisted, refusing to eat the unclean animals. The vision
repeated three times, and Peter must have asked himself, “How could God ask
such a thing that was so clearly against Torah?”
This experience is followed by the story of how Peter
was summoned by Cornelius who also had had a vision and how the Holy Spirit
came upon Cornelius and his family with Peter and several witnesses present,
indicating their acceptance by God even though they were not Jews. This was
certainly astonishing to Peter. Fortunately, he brought those witnesses to
corroborate what took place at Cornelius’ home. Otherwise he might have found
it difficult to explain his baptism of Gentiles who had not become Jews. Even
then, as Paul’s experience with Judaizers in Galatia and elsewhere reveal, the
resistance to extending baptism to non-Jews continued to be strong. Perhaps,
even if they were familiar with Peter’s experience, they may have reasoned that
it was singular and not generally applicable. Matters came to a head at what is
popularly known as the First Jerusalem Council where Peter referred again to
his vision in Joppa and helped the early believers set aside the requirement to
first become Jews in order to become a follower of Jesus. This by no means
settled the issue because quarreling over what Jewish practices were required
of Christians continued to be debated well into the fourth century. From Justin
Martyr’s mid second century work, “Dialogue with Trypho,” to John Chrysostom’s
homilies in Antioch in the late 4th century, as well as several
others such as Marcion and Tertullian, the animosity toward Judaism and its
practices is well documented. One of the practices, widely observed in the
early church, yet vehemently opposed by some of these early church fathers was
the observing of the Saturday or “Jewish” Sabbath. Eventually, perhaps because it
was seen as an easily identifiable marker of Judaizing, it was largely
eliminated within the Christian church. Nonetheless, some continued to observe
it down through the ages..
What seems to be at the crux of these controversies over
Judaism and non-Judaic Christianity is that key text in Malachi. Does the Lord
change or does he not? Perhaps a better question might be “Is God unchangeable
and yet changes?” Let me explain. The Apostle John tells us that “God is love.”[vii] If we apply Malachi’s
words to this idea then we would say God is always love. That would make it a
consistent attribute of God. But what does that mean in practice? Does it mean
God continually showers Snickers candy bars from heaven? A child might think
that was very loving. But someone afflicted with diabetes or obesity might feel
it was cruel torture, especially if God said this will be your diet from
henceforth forever. The point is that a truly loving God can appear
inconsistent as he relates to each of us while at the same time doing what is
loving in each unique situation. This may mean, of course, that what God has
required of some in a unique situation may not be applicable for all time for
all people. This may especially be true if those requirements have morphed from
being a blessing into barriers that keep others from approaching him and
finding salvation.
Returning to the issue of diet, we may find an example
of this. According to the Genesis creation story, when God created man and
woman, they were vegetarians. However, a
few chapters later under the Noahic Covenant, man is counseled by God to begin
eating meat, so vegetarianism as a widespread practice comes to an end.[viii] How widespread it becomes is apparent from
all of the dietary laws in Leviticus dealing with the consumption of meat. But
the change goes even further. God’s people are not only given permission to eat
meat, they are actually commanded to do so for the Passover and in conjunction
with the sacrificial system established during the Exodus from Egypt. If the
text is not clear enough on this, then the example of Jesus should add further
understanding to the issue, for as an observant Jew, he undoubtedly
participated in the Passover and helped consume the paschal lamb. Scripture
also documents that he liked a good piece of fish from time to time.[ix] All of this
notwithstanding, some still say, based on the original
creation, that since it was God’s intent then that we should be vegetarians,
and, quoting Malachi, he does not change, we should be vegetarians today. This
is the same reasoning Peter used when he refused to “kill and eat” as God
commanded. Even though Peter still continued to struggle with the issue of
diet,[x] Paul saw clearly that
things were different now and spoke against diet as being a barrier or
stumbling block to salvation.[xi] He saw that those who
focused overly on diet as being weak in the faith.[xii]
I do not share this to condemn or judge vegetarians or
meat eaters. If that is the message any reader derives then they have missed
the point. The point is that we develop an entire dogma based on certainty that
1) we have a perfect understanding of God, and 2) that understanding is
impervious to change because God does not change. But just like Peter on that
housetop in Joppa, we may be in for an awakening. God has changed many times, and
we need to learn to be flexible in our approach to our faith. God set aside
circumcision which was an everlasting covenant. He set aside dietary laws that
he established. He set aside the priesthood that he established and ordained in
favor of the laity to carry the gospel to the world. He may decide to set aside
anything that serves as a barrier between him and the lost, even church dogma
that we believe to be eternal. We might do well to ask which teachings that we believe
are unchangeable might actually be barriers to the gospel that we hide behind
and others find difficult to overcome in order to come to Jesus.
