Did Peter’s Vision in Acts 10 Pertain to Men or the Menu?

By Chris A. Miller

[Chris A. Miller is Chairman of the Department of Biblical Education, Cedarville University, Cedarville, Ohio.]

The Cornelius episode (Acts 10:1–11:18) plays a pivotal role in the expansion of the gospel from Jerusalem to “the remotest part of the earth” (1:8), and most interpreters agree that the door to the Gentile mission was opened in this episode. What is not often considered, however, is the place of Israel in this new development.[1] Many would say that Gentiles are allowed entrance to God’s people only because the barrier of the Law (as symbolized by food laws) was first abolished. This interpretation is often supported externally by reading the vision in light of later epistles or even earlier pronouncements of purity by Jesus and internally by the alleged meaning of Peter’s vision itself. Others argue that the Jewish (Torah-observant) messianic movement did not first drop its nationalistic identity in the Law but instead moved simply to embrace Gentiles.[2] Does the story of Cornelius teach that Peter first abandoned his observance of the Law, which enabled him to reach out to Gentiles, or did the Jewish (Torah-observant) Peter simply carry the gospel to Gentiles?

This question goes to the heart of the meaning of Peter’s vision. Are both of these seemingly distinct ideas—the abrogation of the Law, and God’s acceptance of Gentiles as equal citizens in His household—found in the same vision? Humphrey has argued that a “collision of modes of expression” often happens in the vision genre and that visions “tend toward polyvalence.”[3] If this is true, then how can one be sure how varied the meaning(s) of a vision may be? While many call on Mark or Paul to explain the vision, Luke must be heard first. This article outlines the meaning of Peter’s vision and the implications it has for the message of Acts[4] by noting the interpretation offered by Luke, especially in light of his literary development and rhetorical strategy.

Preliminary Considerations

Before focusing on Peter’s vision two areas need clarification: the relationship of Peter’s host, Simon, to the Law and the relationship of Peter’s other host, Cornelius, to the Law.

The Significance Of Simon The Tanner

Because tanners had contact on a daily basis with the skins of dead animals, some interpreters consider them ceremonially unclean (Lev. 11:31–40). Peter’s willingness to associate with a person of such an occupation is understood as a softening in his loyalty to Moses. As Neil writes, “This man’s trade is mentioned, not merely to distinguish him from Simon Peter, but perhaps also to point to another break with the restrictions of rigid Judaism: Peter lodges with a man who handled skins of animals which were technically unclean.”[5] This understanding is hardly likely, though, for several reasons. First, Luke portrayed Peter as one whose loyalty to Moses was unflinching. His threefold protest to the thought of eating “unclean” animals shows that he was not questioning the place of Moses in his own personal practice (10:14–16, repeated in 11:8–10). Second, the prohibitions involving the uncleanness of dead animals applied only to those that died of natural causes (Lev. 11:31–40); otherwise even the priests would have been rendered unclean in their offering of sacrifices. As long as the tanner avoided the carcasses of animals that had died on their own, he would be as clean as any other Israelite.[6] Thus, while the tanner may have been on the lower end of the social scale, he was not a religious outcast. This understanding seems to agree better with Luke’s message of the gospel being readily accepted by the poor and the lowly. Peter’s decision to reside with Simon is thus probably not an evidence of a soft attitude toward the Law.

The Place Of Cornelius In Relation To Judaism

A second critical factor is the place of Cornelius in relation to Judaism because it may bear on the kind of defilement to which Peter subjected himself during his visit. Luke clearly described Cornelius as a pious follower of the God of Israel. What is not so clear is exactly where along the Jewish-Gentile spectrum he belongs.[7] The discussion revolves around the meaning of the terms with which Luke described Cornelius: “devout” (εὐσεβής) and “God-fearing” (φοβούμενος). Do these terms describe Cornelius as a member of a distinctive class of Gentiles who were attracted to the synagogue and adopted the Jewish religion, or do they merely depict his pious character?[8]

Luke used two similar participles (or participial phrases) in Acts: “fearing God” (φοβούμενος τὸν θεόν) and “worshiping God” (σεβομένος τὸν θεόν), the former five times[9] and the latter six times.[10] The first two occurrences of “fearing God” (10:2, 22) describe Cornelius himself, while the third (10:35) seems to refer generally to pious individuals in any nation. The last two, 13:16, 26, could refer to faithful Jews or Gentile adherents to the synagogue.[11] The significant factor in Acts 13, however, is that Luke described the same people with both terms.[12] In addition, σεβομένος is used adjectivally to describe the well-fixed term “proselyte” (προσήλυτος). Since the word “proselyte” refers to a class of individuals who were fully converted to Judaism, σεβομένος must have the meaning of piety or zeal rather than a class of individuals who were not yet fully converted to Judaism. “In Acts, then, οἵ φοβού-μενοι τὸν θεόν would seem to refer to ‘the pious’ amongst the Jewish community, whether Jew or Gentile, proselyte or ‘adherent.’ This in turn fits with the fact that the phrase occurs only in that part of Acts in which the thought of the specifically Jewish mission is uppermost…. Cornelius would thus be one who has adopted the piety proper to the Jews. The term φοβούμενος τὸν θεόν—if a technical term at all—denotes one who is especially devout.”[13]

What can be affirmed about Cornelius then is at least that he was righteous,[14] pious, and worshiped the God of Israel. He gave alms to the nation of Israel, prayed continually (10:2), and prayed at the traditional times of prayer (vv. 3, 30), influenced those around him toward Yahweh (vv. 7, 24, 44), and was therefore “well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews” (v. 22).[15] Yet because he had not taken the final step of proselytization, that is, circumcision, he was still a Gentile and therefore was considered unclean.[16] His lifestyle was probably very Jewish, but he was one step short of full acceptance.

Peter’s Vision: The Possibilities Of Meaning

Peter’s vision left him “greatly perplexed” as to what the vision meant (Acts 10:17). He was not alone in his bewilderment. The point of greatest confusion is that while the vision dealt with foods, Peter and the Jerusalem believers understood it to refer to people.[17] The mixture of foods and people, however, has caused Conzelmann and others to assert that “Luke found the vision somewhere else (he did not construct it himself) and inserted it here…. The original intention of the vision does not conform with Luke’s use of it. Its original point did not have to do with human relationships (Jews and Gentiles), but with foods—that is, with the issue of clean and unclean (cf. vs 15b).”[18] Assuming, however, that Luke recorded the facts accurately and that the application to people is appropriate from the vision of animals, does the incident refer to food and then people or only to people?

A Reference To Food And Then People

The first proposal sees two issues unfolding in the Cornelius incident: the abrogation of the food laws of Israel (a metonymic reference to the abrogation of the entire Mosaic law),[19] and a consequent reaching out to Gentiles. Though these issues are distinct, they were combined by Luke because in this view one is a natural consequence of the other. If God first announced the end of the Law for Israel through the vision to Peter, then, since the food laws, which were a major barrier to Jew/Gentile relations had been broken down, the expansion of the mission to the Gentiles was a much smaller theological and practical step. If Jews no longer had to concern themselves with avoiding pork, for example, then they could freely mingle with Gentiles who ate pork and could preach the gospel to them as well. Fellowship with non-Jews would not be a problem because the Jewish lifestyle would no longer differ from that of moral Gentiles. Thus the Gentile mission can be a theological deduction based on a literal understanding of the vision.

Dibelius finds support for this view in the setting of the vision. “In the first place, we are told in 10.10 that Peter became hungry and wanted to eat. This suggests that the command ‘kill and eat’ is meant quite literally and that the food from heaven, which is intentionally mixed with unclean animals, is to serve as earthly food.”[20] Literal hunger on the part of Peter, however, hardly implies a literal understanding of the vision. After all, God’s command to “kill and eat” can hardly be taken literally, as Dibelius insists, simply because one cannot “kill and eat” something in a vision. Peter’s hunger may serve as a device to accentuate the certainty of his response. That is, much as Jesus’ hunger at His temptation (Matt. 4:2–4) emphasized His resolve to resist the thought of bread, so also Peter’s resistance is all the more clear in light of his desire for food.[21] Peter’s hunger provides a meaningful background for his emphatic refusal to eat the food, thus sharpening the contrast in the dialogue between Peter and God, which is a critical part of the vision incident.

Dibelius gives another line of support for a literal understanding of the vision. “Next, the account of the vision (11:5–10), which is given in Peter’s defence, seems to supply the direct answer to the reproach in 11.3 that Peter has eaten with the uncircumcised: obviously, this has involved eating that which is unclean.”[22] However, this reasoning has a textual problem and a historical problem.

Dibelius has to qualify his assertion with the words “obviously, this has involved eating that which is unclean,” because the text does not do so.[23] The accusation of the brethren[24] in Jerusalem was not directed toward what Peter ate, but rather, with whom he ate—not his menu but his companions. Many interpreters have assumed that the clause “You ate with them” meant “You ate unclean food.” However, in Jewish society these two were distinct.[25] Because a common table was the best expression of fellowship (cf. 2:42–46), Peter had taken unclean Gentiles into intimate fellowship by sharing meals with them, and his peers judged this as inappropriate. Simply eating with Gentiles was a significant charge in itself and does not necessitate that Peter ate unclean food. This understanding is also corroborated textually by Peter’s initial objections on entering Cornelius’s house. His misgivings did not involve food, for the thought of eating was surely far from Peter’s mind at that point.[26] His concern was simply being in the house of a Gentile and associating with him. “As he talked with him, he entered, and found many people assembled. And he said to them, ‘You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him’ “ (10:27–28).

Furthermore to assert that Peter was nonkosher because he ate in the home of Cornelius, one must assume first that Cornelius’s household was nonkosher. However, Cornelius’s reputation among the Jews makes it likely that he followed their food laws. It is, of course, also possible that he did not keep a kosher kitchen. But the point to be made is that if Cornelius’s nonkosher kitchen is a critical point in understanding the meaning of the vision, as Dibelius suggests, one would expect Luke to have made that point certain. Therefore it cannot be assumed that Peter was nonkosher when he ate with Cornelius. In addition—and this introduces the historical problem with Conzelmann’s view—it was possible for a Jew to eat in a kosher way even at a nonkosher table.

Several historical possibilities can be suggested. Even if Cornelius’s kitchen was not kosher, it is hard to imagine that one so sympathetic toward the Jewish nation would be so insensitive as to offer unclean food to his guest, for whose arrival he had four days to prepare and at whose feet he fell at their first meeting. Sanders addresses the question of how a Jew could see a Gentile socially. “One answer was to eat Jewish food. We do not hear that vessels in which pork had been cooked were a problem, and it seems to have been only the actual food that constituted a difficulty. The king in Aristeas had Jewish food prepared, presumably in the regular kitchen. All a Gentile would have to do to entertain a Jewish friend would be to buy meat and wine from a suitable source. It was not necessary to have a separate set of Jewish dishes and utensils.”[27]

Even if Cornelius offered his guest questionable food, Peter could still have simply chosen to eat only the “clean” foods. After giving several examples of intertestamental literature designed to advise Jews on how to handle themselves when eating in Gentile lands or at nonkosher Gentile tables, Sanders summarizes by saying, “Avoid the meat and wine, and preferably bring your own food.”[28] Or as Daniel did, drink only water and eat vegetables!

In summary the textual and historical evidence suggests that what both Peter and his fellows in Jerusalem objected to was Cornelius’s company rather than his menu. Therefore if there is little evidence to suggest that Peter violated the Mosaic Law, it is especially ill-advised to posit on this basis that Peter understood the vision as a literal abrogation of the food laws of Moses.[29]

A Reference To People Only

What is most unusual about Peter’s vision is the lack of an explicit interpretation, “a feature that is a highly conventional part of visionary literature, particularly when the visions are being used to make doctrinal points.”[30] As the story progresses, however, Luke wove narration and vision together, providing his interpretation with rhetorical skill. He recorded the visions of both Peter and Cornelius, retelling them five times in the course of the story. With each retelling of the visions details are given, which add to the climax of Peter’s speech before the brethren in Jerusalem. The effect of this unfolding of events is the emergence of understanding, “one accessible to anyone of reason and insight.”[31] Several examples of Luke’s rhetorical art deserve attention: emphasis on houses and entering, the narrative development found in the retelling, and the element of slowly unfolding mystery.

Houses and crossing thresholds. Luke referred repeatedly to the ideas of “house” and “household” and to the act of entering the house.[32] At the very beginning of the story Luke informed his readers that Cornelius feared God as did all his house (παντὶ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ, 10:2). The angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, who was staying at Simon’s house (οἰκία, v. 6). So Cornelius sent two of his household attendants (δύο τῶν οἰκετῶν) to get Peter (v. 7). Peter saw his vision while on the housetop (v. 9) and Cornelius’s men asked for directions to the house (οἰκίαν) where Peter was staying (v. 17). Then they retold the essential command of the angel for Peter to come to Cornelius’s house (οἶκον, v. 22). When Peter asked Cornelius himself why he sent for him, the centurion responded, “I was praying in my house [ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου ]” (v. 30), and he said an angel told him that Peter was staying “at the house [ἐν οἰκίᾳ] of Simon” (v. 32). After Peter recounted his vision before the Jerusalem brethren, he noted, “Behold, at that moment three men appeared before the house [ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν] in which we were staying” (11:11). Peter defended his actions with the Spirit’s command to enter the man’s house (εἰς τὸν οἷκον, v. 12). Peter then recounted Cornelius’s vision of an angel standing “in his house [οἴκῳ]” (v. 13), who claimed that Peter would tell him words that would save him and all those in his house (πᾶς ὁ οἴκος σου, v. 14).

Related to this, but perhaps more interesting, is the theme of actually entering, or hesitance to enter, a house. This can be seen in the use of εἰσέρχομαι (10:3, 25, 27; 11:3, 8, 12). The first one to “enter” was the angel who came to Cornelius’s house (10:3). Then the men from Cornelius located Simon’s house, but waited outside the gate (v. 17). They were not invited in until after the Holy Spirit directed Peter to listen to them and they told their story (vv. 19–23). When Peter arrived in Caesarea and entered the house of a Gentile, Luke mentioned that Peter did it twice! When Peter came in (ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν τὸν Πέτρον), Cornelius fell at his feet in worship (v. 25). After an exchange Peter then “entered” again (καὶ συνομιλῶν αὐτῷ εἰσῆλθεν) and met the people (v. 27). In a curious rhetorical twist of this theme Luke retold Peter’s vision differently the second time. Whereas Peter’s words as originally reported were “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten [ἔφαγον] anything unholy and unclean” (v. 14), the second telling has the words, “By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth [εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ στόμα μου]” (11:8). This rewording is given just four verses before he and the six brothers “entered the man’s house [εἰσήλθομεν τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ἀνδρός]” (v. 12). As Humphrey notes, “Unclean food may never have entered Peter’s mouth, but Gentiles are on the verge of entering his house, and he is about to go into their domain, as well.”[33]

Luke’s literary use of houses and crossing thresholds emphasizes the mixing and acceptance of people who were previously unaccepted. It also advances the argument in the direction which answers Peter’s detractors, “You went into [εἰσῆλθες] uncircumcised men and ate with them” (v. 3).

Narrative development. A second tool in Luke’s rhetorical arsenal is the gradual development of the story. He retold and expanded the visions several times and also rearranged the order of events to suit his desired effect. The variation in the two accounts of Peter’s vision is a good example of this technique. As mentioned, Luke varied the retelling of Peter’s vision so that the contrast between food never entering Peter’s mouth (11:8) and his entering the house of the Gentile finds its climax at the critical moment of defense before the Jerusalem brethren.

Though Peter’s vision generally receives most attention, Luke developed Cornelius’s vision to a greater degree,[34] giving information about it four times. In the first vision Luke, the impersonal narrator, mentioned that Cornelius had clear sight (φανερῶς) of the angel, but Luke was not explicit about the angel’s whereabouts except that “he came in” to Cornelius (εἰσελθόντα πρὸς αὐτὸν, 10:3). The orders from the angel to get Peter are clear, but the purpose for the visit was as yet unrevealed (vv. 5–6). In the second description of Cornelius’s vision, told this time through the three messengers, the angel is described as “holy” (v. 22), and the purpose in sending for Peter is stated. The angel had directed Cornelius to send for Peter to come to his house and had instructed Cornelius to hear a message from Peter (v. 22).

The third account of Cornelius’s vision comes from his own mouth. He recounted how he was in his house and a man appeared before him “in shining garments” (v. 30).

In the fourth and final recounting of the vision, this time from Peter’s mouth in Jerusalem, the location of the angel is recorded. “He [Cornelius] had seen the angel standing in his house [εἶδεν τὸν ἄγγελον ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ σταθέντα]” (11:13). The rhetorical impact of this revelation cannot be overemphasized. The statement came directly after Peter admitted that he had entered the man’s house (v. 12) in the face of the accusation (“you went to uncircumcised men,” v. 3). Peter admitted that he was guilty as charged, but the trump card of his defense, heretofore played close to the chest by Luke, is that Peter was not the first one in the house; an angel of God had entered this Gentile house before Peter! In essence he said, “Blame the angel; he rushed in first.”

Luke’s craft in developing his argument can also be seen in the reverse order he used in this final recounting of Cornelius’s vision. Luke explicitly stated that in Peter’s response to the charge from the Jerusalem group Peter was explaining to them “in orderly sequence [καθεξῆς]” (11:4; cf. Luke 1:3). One thing is certain, however: The order which Peter used (his vision first, Acts 11:4–10; and Cornelius’s vision second, vv. 13–14) was not the chronological order,[35] nor is it even the original narrative order, but it is a powerful rhetorical order.[36] This gradual development of the story by Luke brings clarity to the interpretation and draws the reader into the meaning of the visions and the incident as a whole.

The element of mystery. Another rhetorical element Luke used to his advantage is the element of the mystery of the story. This is true for both parties involved, and not only with regard to the visions but also with regard to their meeting in Caesarea.

The most overt statement of mystery is Peter’s puzzlement about the meaning of his vision, which twice Luke wrote that Peter did not understand. He first puzzled over what the vision could mean (ἐν ἑαυτῷ διηπόρει[37] ὁ Πέτρος τί ἂν εἴη τὸ ὅραμα ὃ εἶδεν, 10:17), and later he reflected on what it meant (τοῦ δὲ Πέτρου διενθυμουμένου περὶ τοῦ ὁράματος, v. 19). This technique certainly draws the reader into watching the mystery revealed by the skillful storyteller, and perhaps this serves as an encouragement not to jump to conclusions too quickly about the meaning of the vision.

More development of Luke’s technique of mystery is seen in the vision and story of Cornelius. In the original vision (10:3–8) the angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, but Cornelius had no idea why. In the second account of the vision (vv. 22–23), which was told by the messengers, the purpose for the visit was for Cornelius to “hear a message” from Peter. When Peter arrived, the mystery lifted slightly. He offered the first interpretation of his own vision: “God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean” (v. 28), but still he did not know why he had come: “So I ask for what reason you have sent for me” (11:29).[38] Cornelius next repeated his own vision and concluded with the words, “We are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord” (v. 33), thus providing only a partial explanation of the purpose for the visit. Only in the final recounting of Cornelius’s vision by Peter was the purpose of the visit revealed: “And he [Peter] will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household” (v. 14).

Throughout the incident this element of mystery is slowly but deliberately solved by divine direction, whether miraculous or providential. As noted, God was clearly the initiator in this action and the one who revealed the mystery.[39] While Peter wondered about the meaning of the vision, men appeared at the gate (10:17). While Peter was reflecting on the meaning of the vision, the Spirit said to him that three divinely sent men were looking for him (v. 19). When Peter entered the house, he uttered his first and only verbal interpretation of the vision in the words, “God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean” (v. 28). Of course the most significant miracle was the work of the Holy Spirit in this “Gentile Pentecost.” In the final stages of Peter’s defense before the Jerusalem group the references to divine initiative more frequently populate his speech. The Spirit told him to go “without misgivings” (μηδὲν διακρίναντα, 11:12), an angel of God was already in the house (v. 13), the Holy Spirit fell on them (v. 15), Peter “remembered the word of the Lord” (v. 16), “God therefore gave to them the same gift,” and “who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (v. 17). In short, Luke skillfully used the unfolding mystery of the story to draw the reader along to his conclusion: God had given a riddle, which He alone answered. God is the author of the mystery and the revealer of the mystery.

In summary Luke’s formidable skills as a writer drew out the lesson of Peter’s vision to people. As the angel and Peter entered Cornelius’s house, so also Cornelius entered God’s “house.” God has now granted the Gentiles not only repentance unto life, but also the fullness of the Holy Spirit and full acceptance into His household as first-class citizens.

Conclusion

As asked at the beginning of this study, how many meanings may a visionary passage have? Humphrey answers the question directly. “Another issue that has been debated is the strange manner in which Peter’s vision is not applied to food laws … but to Gentiles themselves. It would seem that Luke is at great pains to avoid the obvious implication of the vision…. Moreover, although the lesson drawn from the sheet vision underscores people rather than food, food is not uninvolved in the Acts account, since Peter is accused of (and does not deny) eating with Gentiles.”[40]

Admirably Humphrey has looked for clues to the polyvalence of the vision within the passage itself, but as already noted, that evidence may not exist. The charge of “eating with Gentiles” probably has everything to do with Gentiles and nothing to do with what they were eating. Luke went to great lengths to point up the righteous and Jewish lifestyle of Cornelius. Though one cannot say with certainty, the likelihood is that the centurion’s food was kosher and that Peter’s apparent violation was entering the house and enjoying the hospitality of people whose only unique feature was their uncircumcision. Reading the charge of “eating with the uncircumcised” as if it meant “Peter ate pork” is ill-advised and is a weak foundation for saying that the vision refers to food.

Humphrey also allows for a double meaning on the basis of extra-Lucan theology. “The polyvalent potential of vision is demonstrated, however, by the fact that later ecclesiastical traditions have appealed to the sheet vision as being primarily about the abrogation of kosher laws…. It is difficult to sort out such matters, since we tend, despite all efforts, to read Acts from the side of Galatians and later church history.”[41] While “later ecclesiastical traditions” certainly have appealed to this vision as the abrogation of kosher laws, they should carry far less weight than textual evidence. Attempts to explain Acts by means of Mark or Paul’s writings does a disservice to Luke. Such attempts to find harmony in one’s theology at the expense of exegesis should raise red flags, especially among those who claim a high view of Scripture.

Can visions be polyvalent? Perhaps they can. This study cannot begin to speak to this broader question, but it can speak to the polyvalence of Acts 10. The interpretations of food and people seem distinct enough to be called separate meanings. By the way Luke drew the reader along with supreme rhetorical skill, it seems clear that he wanted his readers to understand the visions clearly in terms of men, and as Humphrey says, Luke went to “great pains” to avoid references to food. This event could be dealing with the abrogation of the food laws,[42] but it would be very difficult to prove it from the Book of Acts. The interpretation of a vision report is a complex one in which the interpreter must carefully weigh the manifold factors. But when Luke’s soft but certain voice is heard, the conclusion can be reached that the only change in Peter’s dining habits at that time had to do with the men, not the menu.[43]

Notes

1. “At the heart of this episode lay a fundamental controversy within the Jesus movement over the ethnic boundaries of the Jesus movement and the continuing validity of conventional Jewish purity rules as standards of behavior” (John H. Elliott, “Household and Meals vs. Temple Purity Replication Patterns in Luke-Acts,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 21 [fall 1991]: 105). J. Julius Scott Jr. adds, “As the primitive community struggled with its self-understanding in relation to Judaism it faced two basic issues: (1) Who is Jesus, and. .. (2) What place were contemporary (first-century) Jewish traditions, attitudes and observances to have in the new faith?” (“The Cornelius Incident in the Light of Its Jewish Setting,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 [1991]: 475).
2. Michael Pettem, “Luke’s Great Omission and His View of the Law,” New Testament Studies 42 (1996): 35-54; Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, Hermeneia, ed. Eldon Epp and Christopher Matthews, trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald Juel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, trans. Basil Blackwell (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971); S. G. Wilson, Luke and the Law, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); and Jacob Jervell, The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984).
3. “Whenever visions are used within argumentation, there is a possible collision of modes of expression. Vision reports have the potential to take on a life of their own and tend towards polyvalence” (Edith M. Humphrey, “Collision of Modes?—Vision and Determining Argument in Acts 10:1–11:18, ” Semeia 71 [1995]: 65).
4. It is beyond the scope of this article to address the abrogation of the Law in the New Testament or even Luke’s view of the Law in general. Nor does the article seek to address the question of Jewish adherence to the Law in the first century. Instead the essay deals only with Jewish-Gentile relations within Acts 10:1–11:18.
5. William Neil, Acts, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 136.
6. While it is difficult to be dogmatic about first-century halacha, there is evidence that tanners were not considered unclean. The occupation was somewhat despised, but only for practical, not for moral or religious, reasons. Because the process of tanning required acid, the tanner worked daily with animal dung. Jeremias describes the trades of the tanner and dung collector, which were practiced also in Jerusalem, as ones that were “certainly not considered dishonourable, but were repugnant especially because of the foul smell connected with them. Dung-collectors and tanners went together, since the former collected the dung needed for fulling and tanning. If anyone engaged in one of the three trades in this list, his wife had the right to claim divorce before the court, and to be paid the sum of money which had been assured her in the marriage contract in case the marriage was dissolved or her husband died” (Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969], 308).
7. Gentiles who were attracted to Judaism and chose to convert to it fully adopted the Jewish way of life and took the final step of conversion, namely, circumcision. According to biblical and rabbinic law these Gentiles were considered in all respects Jewish and were called proselytes (Kirsopp Lake, “Proselytes and God-fearers,” in The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 of The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. F. J. Foakes and Kirsopp Lake [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966], 4:80–84). Luke used this term to describe this class of people elsewhere (Acts 2:11; 6:5; 13:43). He did not apply it to Cornelius, who of course was not circumcised.
8. “The point at issue is to what extent φοβούμενοι τόν θεόν is a technical description of the non-Jewish fringe attending the Synagogue, or is merely an honourable epithet applicable to Jew, Gentile, or Proselyte, as the context may decide” (Lake, “Proselytes and God-fearers,” 84).
9. Acts 10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26.
10. Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7.
11. Ανδρες ᾿Λσραηλῖται καὶ οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν, ἀκούσατε (Acts 13:16); ̓́Ανδρες ἀδελφοί, υἱοὶ γένους ᾿Αβραὰμ καί οἱ ἐν ὑμῖν φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν (v. 26).
12. See 13:16, 26 (φοβούμενος) and 13:43 (σεβομένος). Σεβομένοςis also used in 13:50 to refer to religiously zealous but misguided women. This expands the semantic range of the term and calls into question its technical meaning as a particular class of individuals. As A. T. Kraabel says, “The fact that Luke can use two terms suggested that he did not believe he was using technical terminology” (“Greeks, Jews, and Lutherans in the Middle Half of Acts,” Harvard Theological Review 79 [1986]: 151).
13. Max Wilcox, “The ‘God-Fearers’ in Acts—A Reconsideration,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 13 (1981): 118. The same may be said for Luke’s word for devout (εὐσεβής, Acts 3:12; 10:2, 7; 17:23). In 17:23 Paul used the verb εὐσεβεῖτε to describe worship by religious pagans, which suggests that it probably does not describe a particular class of people. For a dissenting viewpoint see John G. Gager, “Jews, Gentiles, and Synagogues in the Book of Acts,” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986): 91-99. After reviewing historical evidence from Sardis and Aphrodisias, Gager maintains that “it now seems likely that the θεοσεβής was, in some meaningful and official sense, a member of the Jewish community” (ibid., 99). Even if Gager is correct, though, he is still unable to explain the relatively Jewish lifestyle of these Gentiles. See also Scot McKnight, A Light among the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 108-15; and Thomas M. Finn, “The God-fearers Reconsidered,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (1985): 80-84.
14. Glenn Davis argues that Cornelius was in effect a righteous “pre-messianic” saint (“When Was Cornelius Saved?” Reformed Theological Review 46 [1987]: 43-49).
15. “These individuals, ‘God-fearers,’ worshiped Yahweh only, practiced imageless worship, attended the synagogue, observed the Sabbath and food laws, and conformed to other basic elements of Jewish law and tradition” (Scott, “The Cornelius Incident in the Light of Its Jewish Setting,” 478, n. 14).
16. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, 346. See also Lake, “Proselytes and God-fearers,” 74–96. Karl George Kuhn quotes from the Mishnah and then puts the place of the “God-fearer” in perspective, “‘A goy who keeps the Torah is of much greater value in God’s sight even than the high-priest himself’ (S. Lv., 18, 5 etc.).. .. Nevertheless, the predominant evaluation of the יראי שמים in Rabbinic Judaism is unfavourable” (“προσήλυτος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 741. See also G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 323–53.
17. “The major problem is that, although Peter’s vision in Acts 10:9-16 is ostensibly about the abolition of the distinction between clean and unclean foods, Peter’s own interpretation of the vision is that the distinction between clean and unclean people has been abolished (Acts 10.28). With this the judgment of the other apostles and the Judean Christians, recorded in 11.18, agrees. Likewise, Peter speaks of the cleansing of the hearts of the Gentiles in Acts 15.9” (Joseph B. Tyson, “The Gentile Mission and the Authority of Scripture in Acts,” New Testament Studies 33 [1987]: 625). See also Scott, “The Cornelius Incident in the Light of Its Jewish Setting,” 477–83.
18. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, 80. More recently Pettem has argued that while Luke omitted Mark 6:45–8:26 from his Gospel because it contradicts his understanding of God’s Law, he included a thematically similar section in Peter’s vision in Acts. For Pettem, Luke achieved the same basic goal of overcoming the dietary barrier between Jews and Gentiles, “but not as Mark says by the abolition of Jewish dietary purity, but by the declaration that all people are clean” (“Luke’s Great Omission and His View of the Law,” 54). Martin Dibelius came to a similar conclusion, positing that Luke drew on an original and simple story about the conversion of Cornelius but then embellished it with speeches and the vision which “muddled” its meaning (Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. H. Greeven, trans. Mary Ling [London: Clowes, 1956], 109–22).
19. Scott recognizes that “the issue is not just foods and associates, or even the whole of kašrût but the entirety of the system that both maintained Jewish distinctives and separated them from Gentiles” (“The Cornelius Incident in the Light of Its Jewish Setting,” 481). Wilson writes, “If the vision implies that the levitical distinction between clean and unclean has been revoked, then a radical departure from the Torah is clearly implied. Luke, however, does not pursue this matter because he understands the vision primarily as a sort of parable about the problem of mixing and eating with unclean people” (Luke and the Law, 69). The problem is that nothing in the narrative indicates that Peter, his fellows, or the believers or unbelievers in Jerusalem understood it this way. As Haenchen notes, “The men of Jerusalem do not infer ‘So now we can eat unclean food as well,’ but ‘So God has given repentance unto life to the Gentiles also’ “ (Haenchen, Acts, 362).
20. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, 112.
21. This idea is not compromised by the previous point that the incident did not involve literal food. Peter’s hunger and consequent refusal to eat would be affected not only by literal food but also the vision of food, much like one’s appetite can be aroused by not only the sight of literal food but also the thought of it.
22. Ibid. Dibelius continues, “Since, as we have seen from 10.28b, Luke has interpreted the vision differently, as referring to the distinction between men and not between foods, a reference to foods was apparently inherent in the vision right from the start” (ibid.).
23. Ibid. See Acts 11:2-3, “And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, saying, ‘You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.’ “
24. “The Greek phrase simply means ‘those belonging to the circumcision,’ i.e. ‘those who are of Jewish birth’ (NEB). There is no suggestion that there was a definite ‘party’ in the church at this stage” (I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 195). Conzelmann agrees. “For Luke οἰ ἐκ περιτομῆς, ‘the circumcision party,’ is not a group, but the whole Jerusalem congregation; they are so designated here in order to point to the problem” (Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, 86).
25. “Eating with them” should be understood in that culture as a practice involving intimacy and acceptance rather than defilement. The clue to this meaning is found within Peter’s speech at Cornelius’s house when he said that after the resurrection Jesus “ate and drank” with him (10:41). This is probably a reference first to the physical reality of Jesus’ resurrection, but intimacy with His close associates is probably also involved. The resurrected Christ ate with Peter, and now Peter would eat with a Gentile. “As in other contemporary societies, the very question of those with whom one ate could have widespread ramifications. The dining arrangements reported in Gen 43:32 are particularly interesting. Joseph, although ruler of all Egypt, as a Semite could not eat with Egyptians” (Scott, “The Cornelius Incident in the Light of Its Jewish Setting,” 476, n. 6). At the risk of arguing from silence the reader should be aware that the statement does not read, “What foods God has cleansed, do not call common.” It is a general statement, “What God has cleansed.” F. F. Bruce’s view, then, seems questionable. “Actually, the terms of his vision on the housetop at Joppa taught him to call no food common or unclean if God pronounced it clean; but he was quick to grasp the analogy between ceremonial food-laws and the regulations affecting intercourse with non-Jews” (Commentary on the Book of Acts, New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954], 222 [italics his]).
26. At this point Peter was still at a loss as to why he had even come to Cornelius’s house! “And so I ask for what reason you have sent for me” (10:29).
27. E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990), 282.
28. E. P. Sanders, “Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11–14, ” in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John, ed. Robert Fortna and Beverly Gaventa (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 177. Even today this is the accepted custom in orthodox Jewish circles in Israel (Channah Safrai, interview by the author, Jerusalem, Israel, July 20, 1992).
29. Interestingly, when Peter objected to visiting in a Gentile house, “You know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or visit him” (10:28), he did not use the most common word to refer to the Torah (νόμος), but rather ἀθέμιτος, which Bruce translates as “taboo” (Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts, 222). Perhaps Peter was admitting that he was breaking oral but not written law. “If we suppose that Luke deliberately chose ἀθέμιτος rather than the more specific ἄνομος precisely because it had a more general meaning, it may express his awareness that the distinction between clean and unclean was seen to be part of the order of things, a matter of ingrained custom and practice, rather than the result of a legal prescription. If so, then the effect of the vision is not to contravene the law as such but to challenge what Luke knew to be the common Jewish practice of segregation from Gentiles. Certainly it contradicts the view of the Jamnian sages and what was probably the view of pre-70 [A.D.] Pharisaism as well as the practice of many other Jews, but the law as such is not at stake. If this is what Luke means, then what is otherwise the only incident in Acts where Jews or Jewish-Christians are discouraged from keeping their law disappears and we are left with a uniform picture” (Wilson, Luke and the Law, 70).
30. Humphrey, “Collision of Modes,” 73.
31. Ibid., 74. “There is an undeniable rhetorical force to the narrative, but its character is the type that wins by finesse, rather than by playing an oracular or visionary trump card” (ibid.).
32. Elliott notes that the domestic setting is emphasized by Luke. “The story moves back-and-forth between the house of a Gentile (Cornelius) and that of a Jew (Simon), Cornelius’ vision at home and Peter’s vision at home, and Cornelius’ offer and Peter’s acceptance of domestic hospitality. In this reciprocal exchange of hospitality, Simon the tanner is Peter’s host (9:36; 10:6, 17–18, 32; 11:11); Peter (and Simon) are hosts to Cornelius’ emissaries (10:17–23a); and Cornelius (and his household) play host to Peter and his companions (10:24–48; 11:3, 12–17). For the Gentile family of Cornelius, like the company of Jews at the first Pentecost (2:1–42), it is a house where the Holy Spirit and the speaking in tongues is experienced (2:2; 10:44–47; 11:15) and it is the household of Cornelius which is baptized and saved (10:48; 11:14–17). Most importantly, it is the occasion of domestic hospitality, social association and commonality which posed the problem over which Peter and the circumcision party struggled (11:2–3); ‘Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?’ “ (Elliott, “Household and Meals vs. Temple Purity Replication Patterns in Luke-Acts,” 105).
33. Humphrey, “Collision of Modes,” 76.
34. Ibid.
35. As Luke wove this story together, he did so with obvious transitions and clear temporal markers (“about the ninth hour,” 10:3; “on the next day. .. about the sixth hour,” v. 9; etc.) so that the factual development of the story is without question.
36. “This technique (change of order) used in functional redundancy brings the crux of the matter to the fore” (Ronald D. Witherup, “Cornelius Over and Over and Over Again: ‘Functional Redundancy’ in the Acts of the Apostles,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49 [1993]: 53).
37. Διαπορέω means to “be greatly perplexed, be at a loss. .. ἐν ἑαυτῷ in one’s own mind Ac 10:17” (Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979], 235).
38. For the first time Peter articulated the meaning of the vision as referring to men. Evidently the greatest obstacle Peter had to overcome in this incident was his reticence to associate with and visit within the house of a Gentile. At this point Peter still did not understand that he was to preach the gospel to his host (10:29), much less eat with him (10:48), and yet already the message of the vision has been articulated by Luke as the catalyst for Jews to associate with Gentiles. Marshall insists that “a new application of the vision was being made by Peter” (Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 188). The point here is simply that as Luke narrated the story, this is the only interpretation that is given to the vision so far.
39. “In endeavouring to make the hand of God visible in the history of the Church, Luke virtually excludes all human decision. Instead of the realization of the divine will in human decision, through human decisions, he shows us a series of supernatural interventions in the dealings of men: the appearance of the angel, the vision of the animals, the promptings of the Spirit, the pouring out of the ecstatic πνεῦμα. As Luke presents them, these divine incursions have such compelling force that all doubt in the face of them must be stilled. They compellingly prove that God, not man, is at work” (Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 362 [italics his]). See also Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Acts, 177–78.
40. Humphrey, “Collision of Modes,” 80–81.
41. Ibid., 81.
42. The words “could be” are used because no one has been able to establish that the passage cannot be polyvalent. Humphrey acknowledges Pettem’s view of Luke as the “fundamentalist” who was comfortable with “two standards, and expected Jewish believers to maintain dietary purity, but Gentiles to follow a modified code.” Then Humphrey responds, “Be this as it may, it is not at all clear to me that Luke does damage to the vision’s ‘obvious’ meaning, nor indeed, that visions by and large have one obvious meaning, although they may be directed along one line to the exclusion of others within a range of possibilities” (ibid., 80-81).
43. If these conclusions are correct, then one area for further study is why God would use a symbol (the sheet full of animals), the meaning of which could be easily misconstrued (at least by modern interpreters)—one that Luke would have to “take pains” to avoid. The answer is not found directly in the text, but one may suspect that the answer involves the response of a kosher person to the vision of the sheet. Some have wondered why Peter did not simply choose the clean animals if, as Luke says, the sheet contained “all kinds” of animals. Bruce notes that the mixture would have been the key element of Peter’s “scandalization” (Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts, 218, n. 15). If this is true, then Peter’s concern would not have been with eating pork, but how he could eat the steak that had been rendered impure by being mixed up with the pork. This mixing theme certainly is carried forward in the story with the mixing of the households and even in a small but curious reference to the numbers of the men. At first three (10:7, unclean) men come from Cornelius but when Peter’s brethren joined them and they entered Cornelius’ house there were six men (11:12, presumably three unclean and three clean—quite a mixture) that entered the gentile household. Thus when God cleansed the Gentiles Peter was free to mix with them without fear of becoming unclean.