Interpreting Peter’s Vision in Acts 10:9–16
David B Woods1
Abstract
The paper challenges the traditional Christian interpretation
of Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16. The text, in its biblical
context, and together with related developments in early
church history, point conclusively to a single interpretation:
that the Gentiles have been cleansed by God. The vision does
not nullify Jewish dietary laws or the Mosaic Law in general,
since there is no support for the interpretation that the vision
also pertains to the cleansing of unclean food. This conclusion
contradicts the traditional Christian interpretation that the
vision has a two-fold meaning, though it is not unique in the
literature. The main implication is that Christians need to
reassess their reading of the New Testament, and especially
Paul, on the Law, in the light of recent literature which
challenges traditional interpretations and posits various
solutions to age-old disputes.
Introduction
Acts 10:1–11μ1κ, or ‘the Cornelius incident’, presents the
circumstances, content, and meaning of Peter’s vision of the ‘sheet’ full
of animals and, therefore, forms the key text of this study. This paper
examines the meaning of the vision to determine whether it pertains to
1
The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
the beliefs of the South African Theological Seminary.
171
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
Gentiles—that they are not to be regarded as unclean by Jewish
believers—or to do with unclean foods specified in the Mosaic Law.
The traditional Christian interpretation is that the vision refers to both
Gentiles and unclean food; by implication, the Law as a whole is taken
to be annulled, for which the selected passage is commonly used as a
proof text. In fact, the two are often regarded as inextricably connected.
There are various problems with this dual interpretation, however, and
the text itself testifies that only the first interpretation is true: the vision
pertains to the cleansing of Gentiles, not unclean food. Supporting this
conclusion is a wealth of contextual evidence in the book of Acts and
the rest of the New Testament, as well as post-canonical history.
Ultimately, however, the strongest support for this interpretation is
within the text itself, Acts 10:1–11:18.
Scriptural quotes are taken from the Lexham English Bible (LEB)
unless otherwise indicated, and footnotes in quoted texts have been
omitted or given separately. Much of the ancient literature is freely
available online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, including
that used herein (by ‘Barnabas’, Irenaeus, and Augustine).
A synchronic exegetical approach is taken, meaning that the Greek text
is taken ‘as-is’, without regard for how it developedέ εy hermeneutic is
literal for the narrative and symbolic for the vision, as I will justify, and
I have adopted a simple grammatico-historical method of exegesis. I
seek to establish the meaning of the text in its own right, principally in
the context of the book of Acts—as the original audience would have—
and to test this against other contextual evidence in the New Testament
and early church history.
172
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
1. Literary Elements
The genre of Acts is historical narrative. This is surely the easiest genre
to interpret, and the reason I believe a simple, literal reading of the
text—in its historical and literary context—is sufficient to interpret it
correctly. The vision Peter saw in Acts 10 was a type of prophetic
revelation, exposing ύod’s will for the body of Christ from that time
onward. It was not a prophecy in the form of an utterance, like those of
Israel’s prophetsέ In addition to hearing a voice from heaven, Peter
‘saw’ strange and supernatural things whilst in a tranceέ Elements of the
vision are symbolic of real-world entities, not a literal presentation of
the entities themselves. Also, the events of the vision were not real (i.e.
they were not acted out as prophetic actions [compare with Ezek 5:1–
4]). Though the implication of the vision continues even today, the
vision itself was not future orientated; rather, it contained a
commandment to Peter for that present moment, inducing a critical and
permanent change in the constituency of church membership. In
Ramm’s terminology, the prophecy was essentially didactic, not
predictive (1970:250, cited in Osborne 2006:272). That is, it was a
‘forthtelling’ or proclamation of ύod’s will, as opposed to a foretelling
or prediction of the future. Biblical visions are generally not polyvalent;
each one has a specific meaning and is not overloaded with additional
meanings for the reader to determine. This is especially pertinent
because the vision was prescriptive, not descriptive; the revelation of a
foundational principle of the New Covenant ought not to be ambiguous.
Acts 10:1–11:18 describes five closely bound primary events:
1. An angelic appearance to Cornelius in Caesarea, instructing him
to send for Peter;
173
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
2. Peter’s visions of the ‘sheet’ during his stay with Simon, the
tanner, in Joppa;
3. Peter’s visit and preaching to ύentiles (Cornelius and his
household) in Caesarea;
4. The ύentiles’ reception of the gospel and baptism in the Holy
Spirit and in water under Peter’s supervisionν
5. Peter’s defence of his actions to Jewish believers in Jerusalem,
resulting in their acceptance of the revelation that God calls
even Gentiles into his kingdom.
Thus, Peter is the central figure and the ύentiles’ entry into the
kingdom is the primary outcome. Each of the points above indicates a
surprising event, three of which involved divine intervention. Taken
together, these events indicate a radical change in the New Covenant
order from the prevailing status quo of the Mosaic Covenant. Also, at
the time of Peter’s arrival in Caesarea, neither he nor Cornelius nor any
of their companions knew what God was about to do—in spite of the
angelic appearance and the vision. The familiarity of the story amongst
Christians detracts from the element of surprise that it would convey at
the time, and the infusion of meaning by Christians using other New
Testament texts anachronously (since most of them were still unwritten)
has obscured its simplicity.
2. Historical and Literary Context
The events narrated in Acts 10:1–11:18 took place at a crucial time in
the spread of the gospel to every nation. Carson and Moo (2005:323)
point out that one of δuke’s primary concerns in writing Acts was to
tell of ύod’s plan to include ύentiles among his peopleέ The divide
between Jews and Gentiles was very marked, as indicated in both extrabiblical and biblical texts of the period, including Acts itself (J.W.
174
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
passim; Matthew 15:22–26; Acts 15:1–31). The Roman occupation of
Israel and the oppression of Jews at times throughout the Empire during
the period covered by Acts (c.30–62 AD) exacerbated tensions between
Jews and Gentiles.
After the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Jesus’ disciples in Acts 2, the
new-born church was fervently evangelising its native people, the Jews.
Later, in Acts 8, Philip presented the gospel to the people of Samaria
who received it, believed in the name of Jesus and were baptised in
water. This is significant in that, though Samaritans were partly Jewish
and had a very similar faith, the Jews did not accept them as true Jews.
Shortly after this, they were baptised in the Holy Spirit through the
ministry of Peter and John. These apostles returned to Jerusalem
proclaiming the gospel among other Samaritans as they went. Philip,
meanwhile, evangelised and baptised the Ethiopian eunuch and then
spread the gospel from town to town, all the way up the coast from
Azotus in the south to Caesarea in the north (also Acts 8). Acts 9
describes Paul’s coming to faith in Jesus, allowing ‘the church
throughout all of Judea and ύalilee and Samaria’ to have peace, be built
up, and multiply (λμ31)ν note that ‘and Samaria’ suggests the church’s
growth amongst semi-Jews. Peter undertook an itinerant ministry
among these churches, which brought him to Joppa where he stayed for
some time with Simon, the tanner, after his prayer for the resurrection
of Tabitha was answered (9:32–43).
The narrative under investigation, Acts 10:1–11:18, is immediately
followed by δuke’s account of the spread of the gospel to Jews in
Cypress and Cyrene, and then to Antioch, resulting in Barnabas moving
there. Paul, who had been ministering in Tarsus, presumably to both
Jews and Gentiles (according to his calling, Acts 9:15), then joined
Barnabas in Antioch, which became known for the establishment of a
175
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
predominantly Gentile community of believers. Acts 12 moves on to
describe Herod’s persecution of the church in Jerusalem and his death,
leading to Paul’s mission to the Gentiles described in the remainder of
the book. The ruling of the apostolic council in Acts 15:1–31
concerning ύentiles’ obligation to the δaw is particularly significantέ
It is no exaggeration, therefore, that Acts 10:1–11:18 is embedded in a
matrix of events telling of the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles.
3. Interpretations in the Literature
Historically, Christians have usually interpreted Peter’s vision to mean
that both unclean food and Gentiles have been pronounced clean by
God. From at least the time of the Reformation this dual interpretation
was well establishedέ Calvin’s commentary on Acts 10μ1η (1ηκημ322)
makes this clear:
He speaketh of meats; but this sentence must be extended unto all
parts of the life. It is word for word, That which God hath made
clean, do not thou make profane; but the sense is, it is not for us to
allow or condemn any thing; but as we stand and fall by the
judgment of God alone, so is he judge of all things (Romans 14:4).
As touching meats, after the abrogating of the law, God
pronounceth that they are all pure and clean.
Later influential Christian writers such as Matthew Henry continued in
this vein (Henry 1994, originally 1706) as have many modern scholars,
including FF Bruce (1988:206), Darrell Bock (2007:390, 394) and
Robert Stein (2011:106). Furthermore, this view is often published in
marginal notes of study Bibles commenting on Acts 10:15, such as the
NIV (1985) and the ESV study Bible. Also common is the argument that
the issues of food and the Gentiles are inextricably related (see Bruce
176
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
and Bock, for example)έ Rudolph Bultmann’s Theology of the New
Testament summarized in Zetterholm (2009:74), presents the traditional
Christian interpretation of Paul’s writings in general, in which ‘Paul
makes no distinction between Jews and non-Jews’, and contrasts law
and works with grace and faith—the law now leading to death (p. 75),
and hence, no longer applicable to anyone. Evidently, Bultmann could
not reconcile texts like Romans 10:12, in which Paul says there is no
distinction between Jews and Gentiles, from those where Paul explicitly
differentiated between Jews and Gentiles (such as Rom 9–11 and,
speaking of believers in both groups, 1 Cor 1:23), so he ignored the
latter. The antinomian tradition which Bultmann reinforced is so deeply
entrenched in Christian theology that some Bibles (HCSB; LEB;
NRSV) are careful to use an alternate interpretation of torah,
‘instruction’, rather than the usual ‘law’ in Isaiah’s eschatological
prophecy, ‘out of Zion will go forth the law’ (Isa 2:3, KJV). The NET
goes so far as to supply ‘moral’μ ‘For Zion will be the centre for moral
instruction…’
In An introduction to the New Testament, however, Carson and Moo
(2005:287) are silent on the interpretation of unclean food, preferring
simply to state that it was about Gentiles. It is difficult to imagine that
this silence is unintentional, given the gravity of the vision. Some other
biblical scholars such as Jacob Jervell (cited in Bock 2007:390) limit
the vision’s interpretation to ύentiles and deny that food is in view
(Jervell uses food distinctions in Acts 15 to support his case). John
εoxton’s (2011) doctoral thesis on Peter’s vision focuses not so much
on the meaning of the vision as on the dilemma it placed Peter in—at
least at that point in time—referring to it as a nightmare. He does
however conclude, that ‘its target was certainly Peter’s misconceptions
about Jew-ύentile contact’ (p. 20λ)έ The σET Bible’s study note on
Acts 10μ2κ states, ‘Peter sees the significance of his vision as not about
177
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
food, but about open fellowship between Jewish Christians and
ύentilesέ’ σotably, the commentators refrain from ‘correcting’ Peterέ
It is not surprising that Messianic Jews—many of whom observe laws
that distinguish Jews from Gentiles (especially circumcision, Sabbath,
and food laws)—commonly argue that the vision is not about food, only
about Gentiles. Michael Brown (2011:206), David Stern (1992:257–
261), and Mark Kinzer (2005:68–71), for example, are all in agreement
about this.
The literature reveals only two principal interpretations of Peter’s
vision; there is universal consensus that it pertains to the cleansing of
Gentiles, but disagreement over whether it also pertains to cleansing of
unclean food. The following section examines what the text itself says
regarding the interpretation.
4. Textual Analysis: Acts 10:1–11:18
4.1. The key question: what was cleansed?
Peter’s repeated vision ended each time with a voice from heaven
saying, ‘The things which God has made clean, you must not consider
unclean!’ (Acts 10:15–16). It is important to note that the voice did not
specify explicitly what God cleansed; the LEB supplies ‘the things’
(hence the italics) whilst most translations supply ‘what’έ όor example,
the NET says, ‘What ύod has made clean…’ The key question is
obvious: what did God make clean? Was it unclean food, or was it the
ύentiles, or was it bothς Christian tradition answers ‘both’, and uses
this text to argue that Jewish dietary laws—and the whole Law in
general—were abrogated by God at that point in time. The events that
followed, however, indicate that Peter came to a different conclusion.
178
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
4.2. Vision genre
The scripture tells us that even ‘Peter was doubting within himself what
the vision which he saw might beέέέ’ (Acts 10μ1ι) and pondering its
meaning (Acts 10:19) when he was instructed by the Spirit to go with
the messengers from Cornelius. Unlike many readers of Acts, Peter did
not automatically assume the vision was about food laws. Rather, he
reflected on its meaning, which immediately suggests he sought to
interpret it figurativelyέ ‘δike the seer of the book of Daniel, Peter
realizes he has received a symbolic vision that requires interpretation.
As a practicing Jew and a knowledgeable reader of scripture, Peter
presumes that the vision is not to be taken at face value’ (Kinzer
2005:69).
Each biblical genre has its own interpretive hermeneutic; parables,
poetry, and prophecy are all interpreted differently. Unlike historical
narrative, visions are interpreted symbolically, not literallyέ Jeremiah’s
vision of the boiling cauldron (Jer 1:13) had nothing to do with food.
Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones (Ezek 37:1–14) had nothing to do with
bonesέ Zechariah’s vision of the woman in the basket (Zech 5:5–11) had
nothing to do with women or basketsέ Amos’ vision of summer fruit
(Amos 8) concerned neither summer nor fruitέ And Peter’s vision had
nothing to do with unclean food any more than it did with sheets. The
unclean food in the vision was a metaphor. I demonstrate, repeatedly
below, that it was a metaphor for the Gentiles. Jews, on moral grounds,
regarded Gentiles as unclean, whilst the uncleanness of certain animal
species was a ritual uncleanness as defined by the Torah (Deut 14:3–19;
Lev 11:1–23). The claim that Acts 10:1–11:18 abrogates the Mosaic
Law is based on an allusion that is nowhere made explicit in the text,
and originates in a visionary symbol being interpreted literally in spite
179
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
of Peter explicitly interpreting it differently (10:28), with demonstrable
divine endorsement (10:44).
Bock (2007:389) argues that the Old Testament gives precedents for
offensive divine commandments to be taken literally, citing Genesis
22:1–2, Hosea 1:2–3, and Isaiah 20:2–3, and therefore that Peter’s
vision is to have literal application to the cleansing of unclean food
(Bock could have added Ezek 4:12; note the similarity between
Ezekiel’s protest in Ezek 4:12 and that of Peter in Acts 10:14). His case
is undermined in several ways. Firstly, these examples are descriptive
not prescriptive, exceptional cases for the purpose of illustration, not
normative. There is no suggestion that they received their revelation in
bizarre visions, unlike Peterέ Hosea’s and Isaiah’s actions were intended
to offend in order to shock Israel into repentance to conform their
conduct to the Law (thus affirming it), not to change or nullify the
Torah—not a yod nor a kots of a yod!2 They were action parables (i.e.
literally acted out), and that only by the prophet himselfέ Peter’s
revelation, on the other hand, was in a trance and had an element of
mystery. Also, unlike Bock’s examples, its meaning was unclear to the
recipient afterwards (10:17). Moreover, Peter did not get up, slaughter
and eat as commanded, unlike the obedience shown in Bock’s three
proof texts. Clearly, Peter did not take this as a positive command3 to be
literally obeyed, but rather, he understood that the negative command
(‘The things which God has made clean, you must not consider
unclean!’) conveyed the message. Finally, while the positive command
to Peter was clearly illegal, none of the Old Testament examples given
contained such a command: Abraham was not under Mosaic Law;
Better known as ‘not a jot or a tittle’, this well-known Hebraic expression was used
by Jesus to stress the same point, possibly in Hebrew (Matt 5:18; Bivin 2007:94–96).
3
One of Kinzer’s (200ημθλ) key questions on this text is, ‘Does the vision entail a
positive command that Jews now eat nonkosher meatς’
2
180
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
although prostitution is contrary to the Law, marrying a prostitute is
notν neither is going about in one’s undergarments.4
Peter saw the vision three times over. Repetition in the Bible is a
technique to emphasise something. Thus, Peter was assured that his
vision bore a message of great importance and one might expect it to
relate to the Gentiles, because of the hints Luke inserted in leading up to
the Cornelius incident (see 5.1.1 below).
4.3. Breaking the Law?
Peter was a devout, Law-abiding Jew who, by his own words, had
‘never eaten anything common and unclean’ (Acts 10:14). Yet, Acts
10:28–29 tells us,
And [Peter] said to [Cornelius’ household], ‘You know that it is
forbidden for a Jewish man to associate with or to approach a
foreigner. And to me God has shown that I should call no man
common or unclean. Therefore—and without raising any
objection—I came when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason
you sent for meέ’
Furthermore, Peter was the head apostle. His ritual purity and
leadership role were critical elements of his selection by God to be the
witness of the vision and the first bearer of the gospel to the Gentiles
(see Stern 1992:261). The testimony of a Jewish believer who was
defiled or had no position of authority would not have carried the
weight of someone with Peter’s qualities and positionέ
Probably not literally ‘naked’ as many translations say (Jamieson, Fausset, and
Brown 1997; Smith 1992).
4
181
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
Peter claimed that it is unlawful (10:28 in many English translations
including the NIV, NASB, ESV, and NET5) for Jews to associate with
Gentiles—yet, there is nothing written in the Law of Moses against it.
Could Peter be referring to the Oral Law, regarded as authoritative even
by Jesus (Matt 23:3)? Jewish association with Gentiles was not contrary
to the Oral Law either, but rather, to strongly-held social customs
enforced as halakha. δuke’s choice of words implicitly supports this
contention: it is ἀ
ο (athemitos) ‘forbidden’, as per the Holman
Christian Standard Bible and LEB, not ἄ ο ο (anomos), ‘unlawful’έ6
Tannaic halakha concerning Jew-Gentile fellowship was complicated
by differences between Jewish sects following conflicting halakhot:
some condemned it whilst others condoned it under certain conditions.
Tomson (1990:230–236) gives examples of both sides, explaining that
the rabbis, who ruled against Jews having fellowship with Gentiles,
were a minority, even within the Land. It would appear from Acts 10:28
that Peter held to this more conservative view, as did the circumcision
party (11:2–3), and probably James (Gal 2:12–13) prior to the apostolic
council in Acts 15. Thus, Jew-Gentile association could be regarded as
‘unlawful’, but only concerning a disputed halakha held by minority
sects, not covenant law.
Stern (1992:258) goes further by saying even that ‘forbidden’ is too
strongμ ‘the word “athemitos”, used only twice in the New Testament,
does not mean ‘unlawful, forbidden, against Jewish law’, … but rather
The ESV Study Bible comments on the word ‘unlawful’, ‘Not in terms of violating
OT commands but in the sense of not following the later customs of strict Jewish
traditions about uncleanness. The Jewish traditions of purity made it virtually
impossible for them to associate with Gentiles without becoming ritually unclean.’
6
William Tyndale’s Worms octavo edition of 1η2θ was probably the first English
Bible to use the word ‘unlawful’ in Acts 10μ2κμ ‘an unlawfull thinge’, followed
similarly by the εatthew’s (1η3ι) Bishops (1568), Geneva (1587) and KJV (1611)
5
182
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
“taboo, out of the question, not considered right, against standard
practice, contrary to cultural normsέ”’ Bruce (1988:209), Witherington
(1998:353), and Stott (1990:189) all agree that ‘taboo’ is preferredέ
Judaism has never formally classified Gentiles as ontologically unclean;
rather, the prevalence of idolatry and sexual immorality in Gentile
society—especially the pagan Greco-Roman society of the time—
resulted in their uncleanness. For these reasons, Jewish rules were
introduced to dissociate from Gentiles, reflected anachronistically in
Jubilees 22:16, for example. Although such regulations did not carry
scriptural authority, they did become engrained in Jewish thinking (see
John 18:28). As Stern explains (1992:259), the classification of Gentile
products and practices as unclean for Jews was probably extended to
include Gentiles themselves, resulting in pervasive negative attitudes
toward Gentiles. But contamination through Gentile-association was not
automatic. Trade between Jews and Gentiles was common. Table
fellowship between Jews and Gentiles is even mentioned in the
εishnah (Avodah Zarah ημη) since ‘the coexistence with gentiles was
accepted as a fact of life’ (Tomson 1λλ0μ1ηκ)έ The point here is that it
was not, in fact, unlawful for Peter ‘to associate with or to approach a
foreigner’, nor was Peter pronouncing the δaw null and void by doing
so. Instead, God had revealed to him that Gentiles are not intrinsically
unclean and thus, the taboo of associating with them was invalidated.
Bock (2007:389–390) mentions the Jewish tradition in Midrash Psalms
146:4 that God would one day (alluding to the days of the Messiah)
declare all animals clean. This is not convincing evidence for his
interpretation of Peter’s visionέ όirstly, the reference is to ‘Yahweh sets
prisoners free’ in Psalm 14θμιν clearly, the link to cleansing of unclean
Bibles. Other early translations including the 14th century Wycliffe follow the Vulgate
(‘abominatum’) to render ‘abhomynable’ (abominable).
183
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
food is tenuous at best. Moreover, the midrash is not decisive on this; it
says ‘Some say that every creature that is considered unclean in the
present world, the Holy One blessed be He will declare clean in the age
to come’ (cited in Brown 2007:282, emphasis added). Aggadic material
is not authoritative, at least not in the evangelical tradition. The midrash
is arguably contrary to Jeremiah 31:33; moreover, we are not living in
‘the age to come’, under the εessiah’s reign over the nations from
Jerusalem, as the tradition anticipated. Brown (2007:277) similarly
objects to this application of the midrash to Mark 7:19 because, first of
all, ‘the disciples, for many years after this teaching, continued to
follow the Torah, and second, that changing the law would contradict
Yeshua’s rebuke of the Pharisees’, referring to εatthew 1ημ3–9.7
Returning to the point that Jew-Gentile relations were not truly
unlawful, it is important to note that Cornelius and almost certainly ‘his
relatives and close friends’ who had come to hear Peter were Godfearers.8 They were thus respectful of Jewish Law, likely keeping the
food laws themselves (Bruce 1952:215; NET Study Note on Acts 10:2
quoted in fn. 8 above). They certainly were not rank, immoral, pagan
idolaters. Peter indicated that they were acceptable to God because they
feared him and did what was right (10:35).9 This being the case, it is
7
Yeshua is the Hebrew name for Jesus.
The NET study note on Acts 10:2 explainsμ ‘The description of Cornelius as a
devout, God-fearing man probably means that he belonged to the category called
“ύod-fearers”, Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel and in many cases kept the
Mosaic law, but did not take the final step of circumcision necessary to become a
proselyte to Judaism’έ Contrary to other authors (Skarsaune 2002:82; Dunn 2006:166),
Bock (200ιμ3κθ) argues that δuke is probably not using ‘ύod-fearer’ as a technical
term and that Cornelius may not have been a regular worshipper in the local
synagogue. In light of the usual use of the word, this seems unlikely. Either way, Luke
records that Cornelius feared, honoured, and prayed to the God of Israel.
9
Similarly, Paul’s hearers in Acts 13:46–4λ, 1κμθ and 2κμ2κ were ‘not just any
Gentiles, but “ύod-fearers”’ (Skarsaune 2002:171). Skarsaune (p. 172) justifies this
claim by observing that ‘τnly twice in the whole of Acts does Paul address ύentiles
8
184
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
unlikely that there was any unclean food in Cornelius’ house at all
(Kinzer 200ημι0)έ He used to do many charitable deeds for ‘the people’,
almost certainly meaning the Jewish people (Bruce 1952:215; Stern
1992:257).10 He also prayed ‘continually’ (δEB; ESV) or ‘regularly’
(NET), literally, ‘through everything’ ( ὰ πα
, dia pantos). He
probably even prayed in accordance with the regular Jewish prayer
times, since the angel appeared to him while he was praying at three
o’clock in the afternoon (Acts 10:3, 30)—the hour for daily Jewish
prayer. His piety was noted by God himself (10:4). At the time of the
angelic encounter (Acts 10:3), Cornelius had no reason to believe that
the δaw was nullified though he must have realized that obeying ύod’s
instruction ran contrary to Jewish social mores. To him, as a Lawrespecting God-fearer and one who esteemed Peter supremely (Acts
10:25), it would have been unthinkable to insult his Jewish guests by
offering them unclean food. On three occasions, Luke mentioned the
story of the Gentile, Cornelius, and his household believing the gospel
and receiving the Holy Spirit (10:1–48; 11:1–18; 15:7–7). This triplet
calls attention to the Gentile-cleansing theme, whilst ignoring food
completely.
Taken together, these facts refute the traditional Christian claim that
Peter broke the law by eating with Cornelius, and further, that this
proves he ate unclean foodέ ‘The vision concerned men, not the menu’
(Rudolph 2011:48). Dietary laws are not in scope in these events at all;
who do not belong to the God-fearers’ν on the first occasion (Acts 14μκ) he was forced
to, and the second occasion (Acts 17:16–34) was not his initiative either.
10
In Acts 10:35, Cornelius together with his family and close friends are described by
Peter as those who did what was right. As noted by Bruce (1952:224), this may be an
allusion to almsgiving since the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word
αο
(dikaiosunē: righteousness) is ָ ָ ְ (ṣeḏāqāh), which was (and still is) commonly used
in Jewish parlance to denote acts of charity.
185
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
the focus is entirely on a change in Jewish-Gentile relations, not being a
change in the Law but in cultural tradition.
4.4. Events resulting from the vision
Acts 10:20 provides a clue to the meaning of the vision; the Spirit said
to Peter, ‘go down, and go with them—not hesitating at all, because I
have sent them.’ Peter was explicitly instructed by the Holy Spirit to go
with the messengers from Cornelius, ‘not hesitating’, ‘without
doubting’, ‘not discriminating’, as various translations sayέ Why would
he have hesitated or doubted whether he should go with them, or
discriminated against them? Because they were Gentiles: Cornelius was
a Roman centurion (Acts 10μ1), and his messengers were ‘two of the
household slaves and a devout soldier’ (Acts 10μι)έ So, from the outset,
we have a strong indication that the vision was about Gentiles.
FF Bruce (1988:206) appears to contradict himself in some measure:
‘The divine cleansing of food in the vision is a parable of the divine
cleansing of human beings in the incident to which the vision leads up.
It did not take Peter long to understand thisμ “God has taught me”, he
says later in the present narrative, “to call no human being profane or
unclean” (vέ 30)έ’11 Why does Bruce write that the events of the vision
were a parable and then take them literally? Bruce himself applied the
italics to emphasize that the vision’s message is about people, yet, he
unquestioningly assumes it also to be about animals. He does, however,
explain that there is a link between the two: consumption of unclean
food by Gentiles makes them unclean, so the supposed cleansing of
unclean animals thus also cleanses Gentiles. This intertwined
relationship is certainly of concern, but does not justify his conclusion.
As already discussed, Gentiles are not defiled by eating unclean food
11
The reference to Acts 10:30 should be 10:28.
186
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
because it is not unclean for them, and social relations between them
and Jews do not defile the latter. The uncleanness of the Gentiles
derived from immorality and idolatry, so the supposed cleansing of
unclean animals would not have the effect that Bruce claims.
Stern (1992:258) notes on Acts 10:28 that Peter sought to avoid
offending his Gentile hearers by referring to them not by the usual term,
ἔ ο (ethnos: nation—typically used by Jews of any nation except
Israel), which ‘could be interpreted as having a deprecatory nuance’
(citing Matthew 5:47) but rather by ἀ φυ ο (allophulos), ‘someone
who belongs to another tribe’έ As a hapax legomenon in the New
Testament this is particularly notable, and it hints that Peter has grasped
the meaning of the visionέ His comment, ‘God has shown that I should
call no man common or unclean’ in 10:28 makes it explicit. This cannot
be overemphasized, and Luke here used direct speech to stress the
point. Peter explained that God showed him, through the vision, that
Gentiles are not to be regarded as unclean. The text interprets itself
without relying on other books of the New Testament, as the traditional
Christian interpretation does—at risk. There is no indication whatsoever
that the vision pertains to cleansing of unclean food. Thus, Peter’s own
uncertainty on the meaning of the vision (Acts 10:17, 19) was resolved
by Acts 10:20 (discussed above) and 10:28. This is greatly reinforced
by Acts 10:34–36:
So Peter opened his mouth and said, ‘In truth I understand that God
is not one who shows partiality, but in every nation the one who
fears him and who does what is right is acceptable to him. As for
the message that he sent to the sons of Israel, proclaiming the good
news of peace through Jesus Christ—this one is Lord of all …’
τften overlooked is the fact that the ‘sheet’ Peter saw also contained
clean animalsν this is implicit in the reference to ‘all the four-footed
187
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
animals … of the earth’έ Why would ύod pronounce clean animals
which were never unclean to begin with? It is far more persuasive to
interpret the mix of clean and unclean animals contained together in the
‘sheet’ as an image of the mixture of Jews and ύentiles, respectively,
together in the Body of Christ—especially considering that Jews who
believe in Christ are cleansed from sin in the same manner as Gentiles.
4.5. God’s confirmation of Peter’s interpretation
Acts 10:34–35 makes it clear, yet again, that the vision had taught Peter
that God is not partial to Jews, but accepts anyone from any nation who
‘fears him and does what is rightέ’ It is worth noting that ύod’s
cleansing was not a universal cleansing of all people regardless of their
behaviour; those who did not fear God or do what was right were not
automatically cleansed.12 In δuke’s wording, Peter ‘opened his mouth’,
which indicates ‘a solemn expression’ (Bock 200ιμ2λη) or something of
importanceν εatthew used the same expression to introduce Jesus’
benediction in εatthew ημ2έ In addition, Peter’s opening words ‘in
truth’ (effectively a translation of ‘amen’) are used in scripture to
convey importance. This is a meta-comment which serves ‘to alert the
reader that what follows the meta-comment is especially important’
(Runge 2008a). Peter was not still pondering what the vision meant; he
had fully grasped the meaning and presented it in the same sentence.
His choice of words, whether in Greek or else in Aramaic (or even
Hebrew) via an interpreter,13 suggests that such people are not in any
way inferior to the people of God; the Greek π ο ωπο
π
12
In this regard, I have already presented the godly lifestyle of Cornelius, who clearly
harboured no anti-Semitic sentiment. Similarly, those Gentiles who first heard the
gospel in Antioch were probably God-fearers who heard it being preached when they
went to worship in the local synagogue (Skarsaune 2002:167).
13
Bruce (1988:213) mentions there are a number of ‘Aramaisms’ in Peter’s speech,
suggesting that it may have originally been given in Aramaic.
188
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
(prosōpolēmptēs, literally lifter of faces) in verse 34 alludes to the
priestly blessing in which God is called upon to lift up his face on, or
show favour to, the Israelites (Num 6:26; Bruce 1988:210). This
emphasizes that God does not favour Israel over the Gentiles in
charging sin (Bock 200ιμ3λθ) and ‘why judgment and accountability
before ύod are keys to Peter’s speech’ (p. 402). Acts 10:36 carries this
through: Jesus Christ is Lord of all—that is, all nations, not only Israel.
ύod’s international reign was anticipated by Israel’s prophets (Isa 2:2–
4; 25:6; 60:1–3; 66:18–20 and Zech 14:9; also see Bruce 1988:211–
212) and commonly in the Psalms (22:27–28, 46:10 for example); a
widely-held Jewish belief was that the Messiah would bring the nations
under the reign of the one true ύodέ δuke’s description of the vision
and subsequent events portrays ύod’s kingdom as universal and nondiscriminatory toward different ethnos, not that dietary laws are
cancelled.
Peter went on immediately to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles
(10:37–43), upon which the Holy Spirit fell upon Peter’s ύentile
hearers (Acts 10:44), resulting in them speaking in tongues and praising
God. By contrast, although the Samaritans and Ethiopian eunuch
described in Acts 8 had believed the gospel and been baptised in water,
they had not yet been given the Holy Spirit. Thus, God confirmed that
Peter’s interpretation of the vision was correctμ the ύentiles were not to
be regarded as unclean or common. This astonished the circumcised
believers who accompanied Peter. They discussed the matter and
concluded immediately that the believing Gentiles must be baptised.
Yet again, the discourse is about Gentiles. Not a word has been spoken
about cleansing of unclean food since the vision itself, nor have any
events alluded to it.
189
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
4.6. Peter’s defence and the church leaders’ conclusion
Chapter 11 opens with news of a scandalμ ‘that the ύentiles too had
accepted the word of ύod’—not that the Law had come to an end. Acts
11:3 appears to raise both concerns—that Peter associated with
uncircumcised men and ate with them, therefore, possibly eating
unclean food. Yet, there is no explicit accusation that Peter broke the
dietary regulations, only that he ate with uncircumcised men. Even if
Cornelius and his household had eaten unclean food (most unlikely, as
demonstrated earlier), this does not prove that Peter himself ate unclean
food any more than a vegetarian sharing a meal with non-vegetarians
proves that he ate meatέ σote that Peter’s defence (11μ4–17) does not
include any defence for eating unclean food; rather, he explains why he
had gone to the Gentiles, preached to them, and baptised them. Peter’s
explanation in 11:12, that ‘the Spirit told me to accompany them, not
hesitating at all’, or perhaps, ‘making no distinction’ (ESV) brings JewGentile relations into focus. The silence on food speaks too loudly to be
ignored. Indeed, one can infer that Peter did not, in fact, eat non-kosher
food at Cornelius’ homeέ He produced six witnesses in his defence14
(11μ12)μ ‘three times more than what would normally be required’ by
Jewish Law (NET study notes, alluding to Deut 19:15). This suggests
that he had, by no means, broken or disregarded any of the written Law.
Luke created a tension for the reader in Acts 11:17 by describing how
the former opponents of the ύentile mission first ‘became silent’ and
then ‘praised ύod’, before the climax and conclusion of the entire
pericope in verse 18: ‘God has granted the repentance leading to life to
the ύentiles also!’ The Gentiles, though grammatically the indirect
object, are brought to the front of the sentence (not counting the
Or seven by Jewish reckoning (that is, including Peter’s own testimony)ν see Bruce
1952:232.
14
190
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
conjunctions)—before the subject ‘ύod’, verb (‘has granted’) and
object (‘repentance leading to life’)έ Such fronting is typical in Koinē
Greek as a means of stressing a term, in this case, the Gentiles. Further,
Luke uses direct speech to emphasize this conclusion. All these literary
devices convey the profundity of the conclusion. The final verse
contains no hint whatsoever that those charging Peter concluded that
their dietary laws had been rescinded, only that God has granted
repentance unto life to ύentiles ‘also’έ The ‘also’ that δuke uses is α
(kai), which when used adverbially (as here) indicates that additional
information is provided (Runge 2008b), the content of which is
explicitly stated. To add matters of food laws to it is simply eisegesis.
4.7. Conclusion of the textual analysis
The information that can be derived directly from the text, Acts 10:1–
11μ1κ, points clearly to a single meaning of Peter’s vision, namely, that
Gentiles are no longer to be regarded as unclean. Contrary to the
traditional Christian interpretation, the meaning is not obviously that
unclean foods have been cleansed, as revealed in the fact that Peter was
puzzled about the meaning of the vision, and the fact that visions are
symbolically interpreted, and that they generally have one primary
meaning. That primary meaning has to be that the vision pertains to
Gentiles, since it is the only undisputed meaning. The derivation of the
traditional interpretation leans heavily on the misunderstanding that it
was ‘unlawful’ for Jews to associate with ύentiles, which was neither
according to Mosaic Law nor according to Oral Law. The events which
followed the vision also confirm the ‘ύentile’ interpretation by virtue of
the gift of the Spirit to them and by Peter’s own confession in 10μ2κ,
34–35. The assumption that Peter ate unclean food with Cornelius has
been shown to be very unlikely, Cornelius being a God-fearer who had
the greatest respect for Peter. The accusation against Peter by the
191
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
church leaders and ‘those of the circumcision’ (11:2–3) in Jerusalem
did not explicitly state that he ate unclean food, but rather, that he had
table fellowship with them. Neither did his defence (11:4–17) contain
any justification for his supposed eating of unclean food, thus
undermining the abovementioned assumption. Finally, I noted that Luke
used several literary devices to emphasize the one and only conclusion
reached by all his hearers, that ‘ύod has granted the repentance leading
to life to the ύentiles also’ (11μ1κ)έ
5. Analysis of the Contextual Evidence
5.1. Contextual evidence in Acts
5.1.1. Preceding context
There is little contention that the Jewish believers in Jesus remained
Torah-observant, at least until the events of Acts 10. The great Pharisee,
who formerly had discipled Paul, Gamaliel the Elder, bravely protected
the apostles from execution, suggesting that the Jesus-movement might
even be ‘of ύod’ (Acts ημ2ι–40). This would be most unlikely if they
were living contrary to Jewish law. Skarsaune (2002:154–155) explains
the reasons for the two waves of persecution of the church in Jerusalem
(Acts 5:17–41; 7:54–8:3), neither of which had anything to do with
abandoning the Law. In fact, Acts 6:8–15 describes how Diaspora Jews
residing in Jerusalem falsely accused Steven of speaking against the law
and the temple. Skarsaune (2002:160–162) further presents a case for
the early Jewish believers continuing in Torah-observance except for
the cult—at least atoning sacrifices which were ‘superfluous’ (p.
161)—long after Peter’s visionέ όor example, Paul’s sacrifice in Acts
21:23–2θ was ‘votive’—a type of thanksgiving offering—not atoning
(p. 157, fn. 22).
192
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
The historical context reveals an ever-widening circle of peoples to
whom the gospel was proclaimed, from Jews in Jerusalem to
Samaritans (semi-Jewish but widely regarded by Jews as outcasts) in
Acts 8 and then, in the same chapter, to the Ethiopian eunuch. His
pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost indicates that he was
either a proselyte to Judaism or a God-fearer (though in either case he
was unable to enter the Temple due to his emasculation, Deut 23:1). In
Acts 10, the gospel was preached more widely to a select group of Godfearers and by the time of Acts 18:6–11, Paul was ministering freely to
ύentiles in Corinthέ Peter’s vision of the ‘sheet’ was pivotal to this
development which changed the course of history forever. On the other
hand, the presumed abrogation of Jewish dietary laws by means of
Peter’s vision is not even mentioned within the broader historical
context of events described in Acts,15 nor is the Law as a whole
abolished.
While in Joppa, Peter was hosted by Simon the tanner. Luke mentioned
Simon’s occupation three times (Acts λμ43, 10μθ and 10μ32) which hints
at something significantέ ‘Some degree of uncleanness was reckoned to
attach to a tanner’s work, because it involved regular contact with the
skins of dead animals’ (Bruce 1λκκμ200)έ ‘Tanning was an unpleasant
and despised trade, regarded as a defect and ground for divorce, or to be
kept at a distance, like corpses and graves (m. Ketuboth 7.10; Baba
Bathra 2έλ)’ (Dunn 200θμλι fnέ ι0)έ Simon’s potential uncleanness
derived from his trade; there is no suggestion that he ate anything
unclean—given Peter’s convictions (Acts 10μ14); he would not have
stayed with Simon if that were the case. The issue Luke was preparing
his readers for was that those regarded as unclean were, in fact, not.
15
Acts 15:1-31 is discussed under the next section below.
193
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
δuke provides another clue as to the meaning of Peter’s vision by way
of parallel in the story of Paul’s encounter with the δord, resulting in
his coming to faith (Acts 9:1–20). The Lord told Ananias to seek Paul
‘because this man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before
ύentiles and kings and the sons of Israel’ (λμ1η)έ The surprise is not
only in the fact that the very man who hated Jesus’ disciples would be
chosen, but also, in the fact that he is chosen to testify of Jesus to
Gentiles and their kings (since Israel had no king). Luke was careful to
emphasize this in his ordering of those who would hear Paul: first
Gentiles, then Gentile kings, and lastly the sons of Israel. Again, the
focus is on Gentiles, not food.
The story immediately confirms this with the account of an angelic
appearance (Acts 10:3) to Cornelius, who was not only Gentile but also
a centurion of the Roman army occupying the Jewish homeland.
However, δuke is careful to qualify Cornelius as ‘devout and fearing
God together with all his household, doing many charitable deeds for
the people and praying to ύod [continually]’ (Acts 10:1). Though Luke
is simply following chronological order, in the stories of Paul’s divine
encounter, the mention of Simon’s tanning business, and the angelic
appearance to Cornelius, the reader is being prepared for a significant
shift in the Gentiles’ relation to ύodέ σone of these incidents allude to a
change in Jewish dietary law, or the Law in general.
The events described in Acts 11:19–26 may have occurred after those
of 10:1–11:18, but it would appear that they took place earlier, and that
Luke deliberately told the story of Peter’s vision first so that the reader
was prepared for 11:20, in which the gospel was proclaimed to Gentiles
in Antioch.
Luke certainly highlights the significance of the Cornelius episode
with the benefit of hindsight: he has inserted it (Acts 9.32–11.18)
194
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
together with the account of Paul’s conversion (Acts λέ1–31) into
the otherwise unbroken sequence of Hellenist history (Acts 6.1–
8.40; 11.19–30) so that in his narrative at least it clearly precedes
the breakthrough at Antioch (Dunn 2006:165).
Two hints that the evangelising of Hellenists16 in Antioch in Acts 11:20
took place before the Cornelius incident are given. Firstly, the
evangelists from Cyprus and Cyrene are described as moving to
Antioch right after the scattering of believers from Jerusalem ‘because
of the persecution that took place over Stephen’ (11μ1λ, see κμ1)έ This
was before Peter and John’s trip to Samaria, the time of peace in the
region (λμ31) and Peter’s work in the coastal areas (λμ32–43), and it
triggered the Jerusalem church to send Barnabas to Antioch to inspect
the matter, who evidently approved (11:22–24). Secondly, there is no
indication that the Spirit was given to the Hellenists in Antioch at that
time. If the Hellenists were indeed Gentiles, it implies their acceptance
by those who formerly considered them unclean, which may have
motivated Luke to delay the narration till after the Cornelius incident.
This would support the interpretation of the unclean animals in Peter’s
vision as representing Gentiles, being an example of their acceptance by
Jews, whilst adding nothing to the claim that the animals also
represented unclean food.
5.1.2. Post-vision evidence
Interpreting Peter’s vision as an abolition of the food laws runs contrary
to the whole of δuke’s writings, the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the
The interpretation of Hellenists as ‘ύreeks’, that is, Gentiles, is not certain because
the word Ἑ
(Hellēnistēs) could refer to Greek-speaking Jews (as in Acts
6:1), according to the LEB study notes. Other study Bibles such as the ESV and NET
disregard this possibility. Given the placement of this passage relative to the Cornelius
16
195
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
Apostles, which constitute one quarter of the New Testament. Luke and
the apostles, whose story he narrates, uphold the Law at every point.
James especially was known for his Torah-observance (James 2:8–12
[see Bauckham 1999:142 on this]; Painter 2001:54–57; Ant. 20.200–
20117)έ Hegesippus, cited in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 2.23.2–18,
indicates that James was highly regarded by devout Jewish leaders. As
for Paul, Carson and εoo (200ημ2λ3) state, ‘the Paul of Acts is utterly
loyal to the law …’ The central question of the ‘Jerusalem council’, or
‘apostolic council’, described in Acts 1ημ1–31 is whether or not the
Gentile believers in Jesus are to be subjected to the Law. This would
make no sense if the Jewish believers had concluded from Peter’s
vision that the Law was abrogated for themselves; in that case the group
of Pharisees mentioned in 15:5 would have criticised the apostles for
forsaking the δawέ Rather, ‘the Jewish obligation to maintain Jewish
identity was universally presupposed’ (Soulen 1996:171). Kinzer
(200ημθι) argues, ‘If one was a Jew, one was not just free to live as a
Jew, one was obligated to do so. Otherwise, the issue of Gentile
obligation to live as a Jew would have been nonsensicalέ’ εoreover,
Peter’s address to the council in 15:7–11 refers to ύod’s acceptance of
Cornelius’ household without coming under the δaw, yet Peter retained
a crisp distinction between ‘we’ (Jewish believers) and ‘they’ (ύentile
believers). This too would be meaningless if the Law had been
abolished. God made ‘no distinction’ (1ημλ) in terms of how Jews and
Gentiles are saved, yet Peter, in his speech to the council in Jerusalem,
made a distinction between Israel and the nations, consistent with the
rest of scripture (discussed below).
incident, and the fact that the disciples in Antioch were called Christians (11:26)
instead of Nazarenes or Jews, I submit that the Hellenists were, in fact, Gentiles.
196
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
Skarsaune is most helpful in showing that the aim is to remove any
remaining cause for offence prohibiting table fellowship between Jews
and Gentiles. A lengthy quote from Skarsaune (2002:170) concerning
the stipulations imposed by the Jerusalem council upon Gentile
believers is warranted:
Gentile believers are told to make a concession to their Jewish
brethren: they should not eat meat sacrificed to idols, or meat from
strangled animals, that is, meat with blood in it (Acts 15:20, 29;
21:25). In the Torah the stranger living among Israelites, the
‘resident alien,’ was told to observe these commandmentsμ ‘If
anyone of the house of Israel or of the aliens that reside among
them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats
blood’ (δev 1ιμ10ν cfέ further δev 1κ:26; 20:2).
In the light of this, the meaning of the ‘apostolic decree’ becomes
clear: the Gentiles need not become circumcised Jews in order to be
fully accepted into the people of God, but they are requested to
keep those commandments of the Torah which are obligatory for
Gentiles living among Jews. Among these commands, special
emphasis is laid on those related to table fellowship—in other
words, the decree is specifically aimed at the unity of mixed
congregations [emphasis added]. The Jewish believers are asked to
recognize their uncircumcised brethren as belonging fully to the
new people of the Messiah, while the Gentiles are asked to respect
the sensitivities of their Jewish brethren and not to violate the
Torah commandments valid for Gentiles living among Israelites.
17
Here, James is falsely accused of breaking the law, but later (too late to spare his
life), he was defended by those most committed to the Law—probably the Pharisees
(see Skarsaune 2002:160).
197
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
It is important to note that James’ implicit appeal to the Torah validates
its continuing authority over Jews, rather than disregarding it. It would
be incongruent for James to use the Torah as a basis for a
commandment to Gentile believers if the Torah itself had been
abrogated. Moreover, we see once again that the context is about JewGentile relations, which were ultimately made possible because of the
message of Peter’s vision in which the unclean animals clearly portray
ύentilesέ Indeed, it is in this context that Peter’s interpretation of his
vision (10:28) is implicitly referred to; apparently, he had explained it
to James (15:14), who further validated it from the prophets Amos
(9:11–12) and Isaiah (45:21). The NET study note on Acts 15:17 points
out that James ‘demonstrated a high degree of cultural sensitivity when
he cited a version of the text (the Septuagint) that ύentiles would use’έ
Clearly, James understood Peter’s vision to pertain to the cleansing of
Gentiles, not unclean food.
In Acts 18:7–11, Luke records that Paul lived for a year and a half with
Titius Justus, ‘a worshiper of ύod’, or ‘a ύod-fearer’, as the LEB
footnote to verse 7 explains. Acts 21:17–26 further refutes the theory
that the apostles deduced from Peter’s vision that the δaw was nullifiedέ
In 21μ20, ‘James, and all the elders’ listened gladly to the success of
Paul’s ύentile mission before proudly telling him how their Jewish
mission was prospering. In it, they boasted that many myriads of Jews
had come to faith in Jesus, ‘and they are all zealous adherents of the
lawέ’ Stern (1992:300) points out that π α υ
literally means
‘many tens of thousands’, not just ‘many thousands’ as English Bibles
usually say. Instead of despairing of such fanaticism for the Law, they
raised a concern to the contrary: that Paul was falsely accused of
‘teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles the abandonment of
Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to live according
to our customs’ (10μ21)έ The remainder of the passage describes steps
198
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
taken to prove just the opposite; these were proposed by James and the
elders, and willingly accepted by Paul. Later, in Acts 28:17–18, Paul
adamantly denied doing anything contrary to Judaism; how could he do
so if he had abandoned the Law? On the other hand, the joyous
reception of news about Paul’s ύentile mission shows that the elders
acknowledged that Gentiles had been cleansed by their faith. Often
overlooked is the fact that the Jewish mission would have been
hindered by abrogation of the Law, since Jews would be offended by it.
If Jew-Gentile table fellowship was not prohibited by Mosaic Law in
the first place, as I have already shown, then, the net effect of repealing
food laws would be detrimental to the growth of the church.
There can be no doubt, therefore, that Luke portrays the apostles,
elders, and myriads of other Jewish believers as continuing in a strictly
Torah-observant lifestyle, whilst accepting on equal terms Gentiles who
had come to faith even without taking on the Law—except the few
regulations specified in Acts 15:20 which enabled table fellowship
between Jewish and Gentile believers.
5.2. Contextual evidence in the New Testament
The New Testament contains a number of references to the eating of
unclean—or potentially unclean—food (e.g. Mark 7:19; Rom 14:14–15;
1 Cor 8–10), and the traditional Christian interpretation is that all foods
have been cleansed for all believers. This has been challenged by a
number of scholars (among others, Brown 2007; Leman 2005; Kinzer
2005; Nanos 1996; Rudolph 2011; Stern 2007; Zetterholm 2009). They
argue that these verses indicate that all foods (except strangled animals;
see Acts 15:2018) are clean for Gentiles—as they always have been.
18
Strangled animals might be forbidden because they are not drained of their blood,
the drinking of which appears to be precluded in this verse (for reasons discussed
199
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
This does not imply they are ritually clean for Jews—even Jewish
believers in Jesus. The uncleanness of these animals stems not from
some quality they possess, but from ύod’s intention to separate a
people, Israel, unto himself. Animals cannot be intrinsically unclean
because God made them (see Mark 7:18–19 and Rom 14:14; Brown
2011:205–20θ)έ ‘The Hebrew expressions tohoRAH (cleanness, purity)
and tumAH (uncleanness, impurity) are technical terms that have no
positive or negative connotations’ (Safrai 2012)έ
The fact that Peter and other Jewish believers withdrew from eating
with the Gentiles in Galatians 2:12–13 does not prove that they ate the
same food; the issue at hand was table fellowship, not food laws (see
Lancaster 2011:82–83; Rudolph 2011:47–48; Tomson 1990:221–281;
Zetterholm 2005); the same argument is used of Peter eating with
Gentiles in Acts 10, as discussed below. Referring to the Paul-Peter
conflict in Galatians 2:11–14, Rudolph (2011:49) says the assumption
‘that Paul consistently lived as a Gentile and expected Peter to do the
same is contradicted by the standard interpretation of 1 Cor 9:19–23
that Paul sometimes lived like a Jew. But, if Paul ‘occasionally
conformed to Jewish law’ to win others, how could he correct Peter for
doing what appears to be the same thingς’ Thus, the cause for the
conflict was indeed close association with Gentiles, not the eating of
unclean food.
Table fellowship was a major cultural issue in the Middle East; it was
something Jesus’ atonement addressed (Eph 2:14–16) but the unity he
created does not necessarily imply homogeneity. R Kendall Soulen
above), though ‘blood’ may also refer to bloodshed (Stern 1λλ2μ2ιι–279; Bivin
2007:141–144). Food sacrificed to idols may also be forbidden in this verse—as the
NIV translates it—but the argument for this is not conclusive.
200
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
explains, ‘the gospel and the table fellowship it founds confirms rather
than annuls the different and mutual dependence of Israel and the
nations’ (1λλθμ1θλ)έ Indeed, Paul’s allusions to the Shema (Deut 6:4) in
1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, and 1 Timothy 2:5 implicitly require
an on-going differentiation between Israel and the nations: if Gentiles
have to become Jewish to follow Jesus, then God is not the God of the
nations, but only of Israel; if Jews have to lose their Jewish identity to
follow Jesus, then God is no longer the God of Israel (Rom 3:3; 11:1,
29).19 Jewish believers, who forsake the Law, neglect Paul’s ‘rule in all
the churches’ (1 Cor 7:17–24) in which he instructed Jewish believers
to remain Jewish. His comment in verse 18 is often misinterpreted to
mean the Law is annulled, whereas he was really proclaiming equality
of circumcised and uncircumcised. 7:18b actually emphasizes the
importance of keeping the commandments of God, that is, the Torah.20
Jesus neither broke the food laws nor taught that they would be
rescinded (Matt 5:18). Following a discussion on Mark 7:19b, in which
he argues that it is written for ύentiles, Kinzer (200ημηι) writes, ‘the
Gospel of Mark as a whole presents Yeshua as an observant Jew who
never undercuts accepted Jewish practiceέ’ όurther, ‘εatthew and δuke
give no support to the view that Yeshua abolished the Jewish food laws’
(p. 58). As for Acts and the Pauline writings, Kinzer continues, they
‘show that eating with ύentiles was a major hurdle for Jewish Yeshuabelievers—even apart from the issue of nonkosher food. If Yeshua
abolished the Jewish dietary laws, then why did his Jewish followers
(such as Peter in Acts 10) require special divine intervention before
they would even sit at table with non-Jewsς’ Rudolph (2011μ4κ)
concursμ ‘Three times Peter rejects Jesus' instruction to kill and eat
19
For further discussion on the oneness of God in relation to his reign over all nations,
see Nanos 1996:184 and Bauckham 2008:94–106. Also refer to Zechariah 14:9.
20
For a comprehensive study on this text, refer to Rudolph 2010.
201
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
impure ( ο
) and unclean (ἀ
α ο ) animals (Acts 10:14–16).
This implies that Peter had never received such a teaching or example
from Jesusέ’ Validating or disproving whether these σew Testament
verses abrogate the Jewish food laws is not my concern here; my point
is that there is a strong case against the traditional view that requires
consideration. More importantly, none of the food-related texts outside
of Acts refer to Peter’s visionέ Even if it were conclusively shown that
dietary laws have been rescinded in other books of the New Testament,
they do not derive from Peter’s visionέ
ύod’s purpose in the cleansing proclaimed in the vision also needs
serious consideration. Few would argue with Bock (2007:390) that it
was ‘to expand the gospel’. However, the object of cleansing dictates
how one understands this. Bock follows the traditional Christian
interpretation that the vision pertains to both food and Gentiles; he
believes table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus
was impossible if they were subject to different dietary regulations.
Cleansing of unclean animals would not affect Gentiles, so the purpose
would be to release Jews from their kosher diet, thereby allowing them
to eat with Gentiles. As discussed above, however, the Mosaic Law
does not prohibit Jew-Gentile table fellowship, on condition that those
Gentiles keep to basic morals that Jews believed God required of all
humanity. These minimal moral regulations ‘are simply an early version
of the so-called Noahide commandments, described in later rabbinic
literature (first in t. ‘Abod. Zar. 8.4), defining who could be considered
a righteous non-Jew’ (Zetterholm 2009:151, summarizing Nanos 1996).
Judaism has never required Gentiles to observe what have been called
‘identity markers’ or ‘boundary markers’ (Dunn 1λλ0μ1λθ, 200θμ13λ
respectively), ‘border lines’ (Boyarin 200θ) or ‘sign laws’ (meaning
laws identifying members of the Mosaic Covenant) that distinguish
202
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
Jews from Gentiles: primarily circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws.
Instead, as the apostle James later formalized, it was enough for
Gentiles to ‘abstain from the pollution of idols and from sexual
immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood’ (Acts
15:20). The issue that the Jerusalem council sought to address was how
unity (particularly as exhibited in table fellowship) between Jewish and
Gentile believers in Jesus may be achieved; the decree it issued did not
indicate that all foods have been cleansed, and therefore, Gentiles who
eat unclean foods. Rather, it stated that Jews and Gentiles are saved by
the same grace (Acts 1ημ11), that ‘ύod first concerned himself to take
from among the ύentiles a people for his name’ (1ημ14), alluding to
Peter’s vision and interpreting it as pertaining to ύentiles, not foodsέ
This implied that Gentiles are acceptable (not unclean) if only they
observe the very minimum of moral laws.
It is difficult to comprehend why God would annul the very laws he had
recently affirmed in Matthew 5:17–19,21 and which he uses to
distinguish Israel from the nations for his purposes, regardless of its
spiritual condition (Rom 11:28–2λ)έ Indeed, ‘the author of Romans 9:4–
5 and 11:1–θ … could not possibly have told believing Jews to stop
being Jews’ (Skarsaune 2002μ1ι3)έ ‘Tomson argues that all of Paul’s
letters were exclusively directed to non-Jewish Jesus believers and
concerned problems pertaining to their specific situation’ (Zetterholm
2009:1535, referring to Tomson [1990]). By retaining a distinction
between Jews and Gentiles within the body of Christ, there is no
contradiction between the enduring validity of the Law (for Jews) and
I find the traditional Christian interpretation—that the δaw is annulled by Christ’s
fulfillment of it—unconvincing; fulfillment does not mean nullification. Matthew 5:18
clearly states that the δaw will prevail ‘until heaven and earth pass away’έ Christians
wrongly nullify this strong statement of Jesus by arguing that the Law remains but is
no longer applicable. If Jesus berated the Pharisees and the scribes for nullifying the
word of God for the sake of their tradition, what would he say to the church?
21
203
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
New Testament scriptures which give instructions (to Gentiles) not to
take on the Law. The apostles also retained Jew-Gentile distinction after
Peter’s vision even amongst believers in Acts 21:18–25. Such
distinction is entirely consistent with ύod’s promises in Jeremiah
31:35–37 and 33:25–26, and since it is precisely observance of the Law
which creates that distinction—outwardly, at least—one has to question
whether God would cancel the sign laws. Exodus 31:12–17 provides a
good example of a ‘sign’ that ύod commanded Israel to keep ‘forever’έ
The setting apart of Israel from the nations and the question of on-going
Torah-observance for Jewish believers in Jesus are beyond the scope of
this paper,22 but, were nevertheless taken for granted by Peter and the
leaders of the church in Jerusalem.
5.3. Conclusion of the contextual evidence
There is no biblical evidence outside of the Acts 10:1–11:18 pericope
that Peter’s vision was to have a double interpretation (relating both to
Gentiles and to food), neither elsewhere in Acts nor in the rest of the
New Testament. To the contrary, Jewish believers described in the New
Testament—and especially in Acts—sought to keep the Mosaic Law,
indicating that they understood Peter’s vision to mean that ύentiles had
been cleansed, not unclean food. The contextual evidence presented
provides supporting evidence for the conclusion reached in the textual
analysis of the pericope itself. What remains is to examine the history
of the early church for any further evidence to support or contradict this
outcome.
I intend to examine these matters in later papersέ Suffice it to say the ‘unity’ texts
(Gal 3:28; Eph 2:14–16; Col 3:9–11) do not speak of Jew-Gentile homogenisation,
and the ‘no distinction’ texts (Acts 1ημλν Rom 3μ22–23; 10:12) relate to common
human sinfulness and means of salvation, not dissolution of Jew-Gentile boundaries.
22
204
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
6. Historical Analysis
6.1. The testimony of history as a hermeneutic
If the interpretation derived above is correct, one would expect it to be
supported by subsequent church history. In the introduction to Elusive
Israel, Charles Cosgrove (1λλιμxi) asks, ‘What ought Christians do
when faced with conflicting interpretations of scriptureς’ He explains
that the ‘plain grammatical sense’ of a text—as sought after by the
Reformers—is not always adequate to determine its meaning. Thus,
theologians turned to ‘historical biblical theology’ late in the eighteenth
century, hoping that ‘sound and honest exegesis could provide clarity
and certainty about obscure textsέ’ This, too, was inadequate in some
cases, leaving the church to rely on earlier scholarship, which itself was
not always in consensus (xii)ν ‘many questions of exegesis cannot be
historically resolved, because the texts themselves are irreducibly
ambiguousέ’ A solution Cosgrove offers is that ‘canonical interpretation
requires, by its very nature, a hermeneutic of use’ to adjudicate between
‘competing plausible interpretations’ (xiii)έ He proposes that Christians
should consider the purpose of scripture as expressed in Matthew
22:37–40ν that is, ‘interpretive judgments should be guided by the
command ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourselfέ’ Using this,
Kinzer (2005:33–3κ) develops ‘hermeneutics of ethical accountability’
in which ‘we must not only employ abstract and theoretical criteria for
evaluating theological claims; we must also have recourse to practical
or functional criteria for determining theological truth’ (pέ 33)έ In short,
bad hermeneutics results in bad ethics and a failure to fulfil what Jesus
called the second greatest commandment, referring to Leviticus 19:18.
Given the textual and contextual evidence already presented in this
paper, I do not believe there remains any ambiguity in the meaning of
205
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
Peter’s visionέ σevertheless, if my case is sound then Cosgrove’s
‘hermeneutic of use’ should confirm itέ
6.2. Historical evidence
Historical evidence shows conclusively that many Jewish believers
continued to observe the law for several centuries after the canon was
closed, or at least as much of it as possible after the razing of the temple
in 70 AD. These included the Nazarenes who, unlike the Ebionites, held
to a high christology (Juster 1995:135–140). Kinzer (2005:181–209)
describes on-going difficulties within the ekklesia to resolve this matter
as late as Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Obviously, Jewish
believers did not believe that the Law was abrogated, nor had they been
taught that through the apostolic tradition. Rather, they believed that
they were to continue to live as Jews in unity with Gentile believers
who observed at least the four commandments of the Jerusalem council
(Acts 1ημ20)έ They clearly did not take Peter’s vision to mean that food
laws were abrogatedέ Applying Cosgrove’s hermeneutic of use; one
would conclude that the Law is still binding on Jewish believers.
After the first century, the Jewish believers suffered a great loss in
numbers (Juster 1995:139–140), whereas the Gentile mission prospered
in spite of numerous Roman persecutions. Once the church came to be
dominated and led by Gentiles, scriptures, warning Gentiles against
becoming Jewish to be better or ‘more complete’ Christians (that is,
Judaising, as in Galatians) were applied to Jewish believers; they were
sometimes forced to abandon the sign laws, including kosher diets. The
anti-Jewish polemics of some of the Church Fathers (particularly
Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr) show that they wished that
Jewish believers would cut all ties with Judaism. Kinzer (2005:187–
197) presents a synopsis of anti-Jewish and antinomian writings in five
ante-Nicene fathers, who were all seeking to oppose the ‘Judaising’ of
206
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
believers, namely, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and the
authors of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle to Diognetus. As far
as I can ascertain, their writings do not contain any reference to the
abolition of food laws in connection with Peter’s vision, in spite of their
beliefs. The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas (Barnabas 10) validated
the Mosaic Law as eternally binding, but then allegorized it altogether.
Skarsaune (2002:221) suggests that whoever wrote Barnabas was
unable to reconcile his own life outside the Law with his belief in its
eternal validity; thus, he spiritualised all the purity laws. Irenaeus (A.H.
III 12έι) was the only one who commented on Peter’s vision,
interpreting the unclean animals as a reference to Gentiles. He gave no
hint that it should be taken also as a literal reference to the cleansing of
unclean food. His main concern at that point was to demonstrate that
the God of the Mosaic Covenant is the same God as that of the New
Covenant, stating that the vision was to teach Peter that the same God
who distinguished between clean and unclean through the Law was the
God who had cleansed Gentiles by the blood of Jesus.
Kinzer (2005:201–205) refers to an exchange of letters between
Augustine and Jerome around the start of the fifth century concerning
the permissibility, even appropriateness, of Jewish ‘Yeshua-believers’
observing the Law. In the 426 AD, Augustine completed the fourth book
of On Christian Doctrine. In 20.39, where he argued against Christian
subjection to the Law, he quoted from Galatians 4, but did not mention
Acts 10. Similarly, in his writings against the Manichaeans (14.35), he
referred to both Paul’s comments on unclean food in 1 Corinthians 8:7–
13, but did not mention Peter’s visionέ όrom this we can assume that
although he took the Law to be annulled, he did not reach that
conclusion from Peter’s visionέ Kinzer (200ημ20θ) argues that ‘like
Irenaeus and Augustine … Aquinas seeks to combine reverence for the
ceremonies of the Mosaic law with the firm conviction that their
207
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
observance is no longer validέ’ This is similar to the explanation
Skarsaune posits about the dilemma that led to the author of Barnabas
allegorizing Jewish ceremonial laws, though Aquinas apparently used a
different approach, comparing Jewish observance with fulfilled
prophecy. Paraphrasing Michael Wyschogrod, Kinzer (2005:207)
demonstrates that ‘both Thomas [Aquinas] and Augustine … begin with
their conclusion, which is for them an incontrovertible article of
ecclesiastical tradition, and then work backward. They struggle to find
theological justification for an established teaching that is difficult to
defendέ’
6.3. Conclusion of the historical evidence
There seems to be no historical evidence from the patristic period that
Peter’s vision was used to justify the requirement for Jewish believers
to forsake the sign laws. Not even the Apostolic Fathers, let alone the
later Church Fathers, appealed to Acts 10:9–16 in arguing against
Christian Torah-observance. Moreover, the fact that Jewish believers
continued for centuries to keep the sign laws, including food laws,
testifies against the dual interpretation of Peter’s visionέ Cosgrove’s test
of love for one’s neighbour, and Kinzer’s hermeneutic of ethical
accountability, applied to the church’s efforts to ‘ύentilize’ its Jewish
members—sometimes forcibly—agree with this conclusion. Bad
attitudes and ethical behaviour towards Jews, including Messianic Jews,
exposes bad exegesis concerning the validity of the Torah for them.
This, in turn, undermines the interpretation that the cleansing of unclean
animals in Peter’s vision literally meant that unclean foods have been
cleansed for Jews.
208
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
Conclusion and Implications
The long-term and widespread propagation of the traditional dual
interpretation of Peter’s vision has become so deeply ingrained in
collective Christian psyche that it is difficult to challenge, regardless of
the evidence. Yet, there is nothing in this passage (Acts 10:1–11:18) to
support the argument that the δaw is done away with, nor that Peter’s
vision was an injunction by God to forsake the food commandments.
On the contrary, the text repeatedly affirms that the vision was about
ύod’s cleansing of the ύentilesέ This passage, and specifically the
vision it describes, does not address the Law at all. As I have sought to
show, the narrative itself contains the interpretation of the vision, as
indeed confirmed by God himself. Moreover, the study of the context of
the passage within Acts strongly supports the contention that Gentile
inclusion is the vision’s theme, and that the δaw was assumed to remain
in force for Jewish believers in Jesus. I also showed the same is true in
the broader context of the New Testament, and that this understanding
did not simply disappear after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD,
but continued amongst Jewish believers throughout the patristic period.
Even movements to ‘de-Judaise’ Jewish believers did not use that text
to justify their intentions. Modern Gentile readers have difficulty in
grasping the enormity that termination of the Mosaic Law would have
meant for the Jewish believers. Such a dramatic change would certainly
have had to be made by the apostles in an explicit proclamation to all
Jewry, yet, the book of Acts nowhere mentions any such
announcement.
In the light of all the evidence presented, I submit that readers who
insist that the vision annulled food laws are ‘shoe-horning’ the text onto
their belief system, projecting it onto their predetermined theological
grid. I would also call for serious review of food- and law-related
209
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
passages in the New Testament in the light of work done by modern
scholars23 who challenge the notion that the Mosaic Law is abrogated
for Jews, particularly those in the New Covenant. Their work deserves a
hearing in mainstream Christian theology, particularly since they have
responded thoroughly and respectfully to this aspect of traditional
Christian theology.
Many Christians are troubled by the suggestion that certain aspects of
the Law are still binding on Jews, especially Jews who believe in Jesus.
Paul wrote that ‘Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
everyone who believes’ (Rom 10:4), yet, he also argued that our faith
upholds the law (Rom 3μ2κ)έ In my estimation, the church’s traditional
explanation of the apparent contradictions so common in Paul (both his
life as recorded in Acts, and his writings) and the Torah-faithfulness of
the other apostles is inadequate. It is based largely on an antinomian
reading of 1 Corinthians 9:19–23. Rudolph (2011) attacks the use of 1
Corinthians 9:19–24 to explain Paul as a so-called ‘chameleon’
evangelist who only pretended to be Jewish when evangelising Jews.
Plausible alternative interpretations of Paul’s understanding and
application of the Law are found in the literature, sometimes referred to
as the ‘radical new perspective on Paul’, conveniently summarized in
Zetterholm (2009). I would call upon troubled readers to seriously
examine these alternatives without pre-commitment to a particular faith
tradition.
The Holocaust triggered a marked change in Christian theology,
particularly Replacement Theology, and initiated a renewal of the
Jewish mission, which has been particularly fruitful over the past four
23
To name a few: Mark Kinzer, Joseph Shulam, Hilary Le Cornu, David Rudolph,
Mark Nanos, Peter Tomson, Michael Wyschogrod, Jacob Jervell, Daniel Thomas
Lancaster, Derek Leman, Markus Bockmuehl, Daniel Juster, and David Stern.
210
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
decades (Harvey 2009:2). The hermeneutic of ethical accountability
(Kinzer 2005) and test of love (Cosgrove 1997) should be applied by
the church to its doctrines pertaining to Israel and the Law. I submit that
this would engender a restoration of Jewish-Christian relations in which
the church not only abandons the triumphalist attitude that emerged in
the time of Constantine, but also adopts the humble attitude of
indebtedness and gratitude to the Jewish people that Paul promoted
(Rom 9:1–5; 11:17–18; 15:25–27). To some extent, this has already
begun, but there are deeper dimensions to explore, including the nature
and composition of the ekklesia (e.g. Kinzer 2005). Further to this, I
would call on Christian theologians to review the doctrines which they
have inherited from tradition after serious study of first-century
halakha; the lack of understanding of halakha played a very significant
role in the church’s (mis-)interpretation of what was ‘unlawful’ about
Peter’s visit to Cornelius (Acts 10μ2κ), resulting in an uncritical
reinforcement of the very texts used to sustain this misinterpretation.
Reference List
Bauckham R 1999. James: wisdom of James, disciple of Jesus the sage.
London: Routledge.
__________ 2008. Jesus and the God of Israel: God crucified and other
studies on the New Testament’s christology of divine identity.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Bivin D 2007. New light on the difficult words of Jesus: insights from
his Jewish context. Holland: En-Gedi Resource Center.
Bock DL 2007. Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Boyarin D 2006. Border Lines: the partition of Judaeo-Christianity.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Brown ML 2007. Answering Jewish objections to Jesus: New
Testament objections. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
211
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
Brown ML 2011. 60 questions Christians ask about Jewish beliefs and
practices. Bloomington: Baker Books.
Bruce FF 1988. The Book of Acts (rev. ed.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
__________ 1952. The Acts of the Apostles: the Greek text with
introduction and commentary. London: Tyndale Press.
Calvin J 1585. Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles. Translated
by H Beveridge. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal
Library. Online article. Accessed from www.ccel.org, 15-02-2012.
Carson DA and Moo DJ 2005. An introduction to the New Testament
(2nd ed.). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Cosgrove CH 1997. Elusive Israel: puzzle of election in Romans.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press.
Dunn JDG 1990. Jesus, Paul, and the law: studies in Mark and
Galatians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
__________ 2006. The partings of the ways: between Christianity and
Judaism and their significance for the character of Christianity
(2nd ed.). London: SCM Press.
Harvey R 2009. Mapping Messianic Jewish theology: a constructive
approach. Milton Keynes: Paternoster.
Henry M 1994. Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible:
complete and unabridged in one volume. Peabody: Hendrickson.
Jamieson R, Fausset AR, and Brown D 1997. Commentary critical and
explanatory on the whole Bible (Logos ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos.
Juster DC 1995. Jewish roots: a foundation of biblical theology.
Shippensburg: Destiny Image Publishers.
Kinzer M 2005. Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: redefining
Christian engagement with the Jewish people. Grand Rapids:
Brazos.
Lancaster DT 2011. The Holy Epistle to the Galatians: sermons on a
Messianic Jewish approach. Marshfield: First Fruits of Zion.
212
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
Leman D 2005. Paul didn’t eat pork: reappraising Paul the pharisee.
Stone Mountain: Mt. Olive Press.
Moxton JRL 2011. Peter’s Halakhic nightmare: the animal vision of
Acts 10:9–16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman perspective. Durham:
Durham University. Online thesis. Accessed from etheses.dur.
ac.uk/3288/, 2012-02-01.
Nanos MD 1996. The mystery of Romans: the Jewish context of Paul’s
letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Osborne GR 2006. The hermeneutical spiral: a comprehensive
introduction to biblical interpretation (2nd ed.). Downers Grove:
IVP.
Painter J 2001. Who was James? In B Chilton and J Neusner, The
brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission, 10–65.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Ramm BL 1970. Protestant biblical interpretation: a textbook of
hermeneutics (3rd rev. ed.) Grand Rapids: Baker.
Rudolph DJ 2010έ Paul’s “rule in all the churches” (1 Cor ιμ1ι–24) and
Torah-defined Ecclesiological Variegation. Studies in ChristianJewish Relations 5(1). Paper presented at the American Academy
of Religion Conference, 3 November 2008. Accessed from
escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5, 2012-02-29.
Rudolph DJ 2011. A Jew to the Jews: Jewish contours of Pauline
flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Runge SE 2008a. The Lexham discourse Greek New Testament (Logos
ed.). Bellingham: Logos.
__________ 2008b. The Lexham high definition New Testament:
introduction (Logos ed.). Bellingham: Logos.
Safrai C [2012]. Chana Safrai Responds. In M Wilson, Jewish laws of
purity in Jesus’ day. Online article. Accessed from
jerusalemperspective.com/%5Cdefault.aspx?tabid=27&ArticleID=
1456, 2012-02-29.
213
Woods, ‘Interpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10μλ–16’
Skarsaune O 2002. In the shadow of the Temple: Jewish influences on
early Christianity. Downers Grove: IVP.
Smith JE 1992. The major prophets. Old Testament Survey Series
(Logos ed.). Joplin: College Press.
Soulen RK 1996. The God of Israel and Christian theology.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Stein RH 2011. A basic guide to interpreting the Bible: playing by the
rules. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Stern DH 1992. Jewish New Testament commentary: a companion
volume to the Jewish New Testament. Clarksville: Jewish New
Testament Publications.
__________ 2007. Messianic Judaism: a modern movement with an
ancient past. Tübingen: Messianic Jewish Publishers.
Stott JRW 1990. The Spirit, the Church, and the world: the message of
Acts. Downers Grove: IVP.
Tomson PJ 1990. Paul and the Jewish law: halakha in the letters of the
Apostle to the Gentiles. Assen: Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.
Witherington B 1998. The Acts of the Apostles: a socio-rhetorical
commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Zetterholm M 2005. Purity and anger: Gentiles and idolatry in Antioch.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1. Accessed
from www.religjournal.com, 2012-03-03.
__________ M 2009. Approaches to Paul: a student’s guide to recent
scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
214