THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 24, Chapter 10 continued
It is said that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So I suppose for me as a Hebrew Roots
Bible teacher, Acts chapter 10 looks like one of those places in the Bible that needs to be
attacked with great vigor. Therefore as we enter our 2
nd
week studying Acts chapter 10, we’ll
continue to move deliberately and carefully dissect this chapter as it plays a crucial role in
Christian and Messianic doctrine.
I suspect that what we discussed last week concerning especially the 2
nd
paragraph of chapter
10 (about the sheet with the animals coming down from Heaven) was challenging to absorb
due to the many nuances that are present there and the difficulties of using terms that
Christians aren’t used to hearing. If it was challenging or confusing for you don’t feel bad
about it; it is indeed complex. That said, it is critical that we understand the intended meaning
behind the 4 legged beasts and the other creatures in the sheet that descends from Heaven as
thoroughly as we can because frankly it has been poorly interpreted and taught for centuries
by some of our greatest and most recognized Bible scholars. This is due to two factors: 1) a
built-in denominational and doctrinal bias that ignores the plain meaning of passages, and 2) a
lack of knowledge about Judaism, the Synagogue, Halakhah, and ancient Jewish culture in
general that prevents an otherwise superior Bible scholar from seeing what is actually
occurring in its historical context. The result has been some Christian doctrine that is not only
incorrect, but it fosters anti-Semitism and the powerless, casual Christianity that we see
present in our day.
I want to review with you a bit from last time and to add some additional information and
explanation in hopes of helping you to grasp this as best you can before we continue with the
next several verses of Acts chapter 10. It is a little like the importance of first being comfortable
with basic math (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) before moving on to Algebra.
I’ll begin by giving you an example of the nature of the problem that Bible students wrestle
with in trying to discover the truth of Acts chapter 10 by quoting to you from perhaps the most
authoritative modern commentary on the Book of Acts in publication today, as authored by the
venerable F. F. Bruce. I ask you to listen carefully to what he says about the nature and plain
meaning of this passage; but then notice how despite admitting the truth he does an about face
and reverts to his doctrinal stance as an obvious self-contradiction. In his Commentary on the
Book of Acts in reference to Acts 10:9-19 F. F. Bruce says this:
“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 this: ‘God has taught me’, he says later in the present narrative, ‘to call no
human being profane or unclean”.
So Bruce fully acknowledges that the vision Peter witnesses is a parable; that is, it is not literal
1 / 8

but rather it is a simple story using commonly known objects and items symbolically to get
across a point. The sheet full of animals is meant to represent something else entirely. Let me
give you an example of how a parable works using one that we’re all familiar with, the parable
that Yeshua told about the 10 virgins.
CJB
Matthew 25:1 "The Kingdom of Heaven at that time will be like ten bridesmaids who
took their lamps and went out to meet the groom.
2
Five of them were foolish and five were sensible.
3
The foolish ones took lamps with them but no oil,
4
whereas the others took flasks of oil with their lamps.
5
Now the bridegroom was late, so they all went to sleep.
6
It was the middle of the night when the cry rang out, 'The bridegroom is here! Go out
to meet him!'
7
The girls all woke up and prepared their lamps for lighting.
8
The foolish ones said to the sensible ones, 'Give us some of your oil, because our
lamps are going out.'
9
'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both you and us. Go to the oil dealers
and buy some for yourselves.'
10
But as they were going off to buy, the bridegroom came. Those who were ready went
with him to the wedding feast, and the door was shut.
11
Later, the other bridesmaids came. 'Sir! Sir!' they cried, 'Let us in!'
12
But he answered, 'Indeed! I tell you, I don't know you!'
13
So stay alert, because you know neither the day nor the hour.
If we don’t notice that this is a parable, and if we don’t recognize that Yeshua is employing
commonly understood terms and characters and objects used within Jewish culture to concoct
a fanciful and memorable story to make His point, then we leave this passage deciding that He
is instructing His followers about literal grooms, virgins, lamps and olive oil. So if this wasn’t a
parable then what other conclusion can we arrive at but that if you are not a Jewish virgin, this
simply doesn’t apply to you? And if you are a Jewish virgin, you urgently need to acquire a
couple of lamps and stock up on a ready supply of olive oil to fuel them if you expect to
succeed in getting married. But of course it is a parable and so the people and objects (the
virgins and the lamps) are symbolic of something else.
2 / 8

Now let’s apply this to Acts chapter 10. F. F. Bruce agrees and unequivocally states that the
vision of the sheet with the animals and the instruction to kill and eat is a story (in this case a
vision) told as a parable. That is, the scene uses objects and circumstances familiar to Jews to
make a point. But like with the parable of the 10 virgins that doesn’t actually mean for the
hearer to think that this is all about virgins and lamps, so Peter’s vision doesn’t actually mean
for the hearer to think that this is all about a sheet and some unclean animals, nor is it about
killing and eating them. Rather it is about something else entirely; which is how all parables
work.
A couple of sentences later after Professor Bruce acknowledges that Peter’s vision is a
parable (which of course it is), and the meaning has to do with the acceptance of gentiles, he
then turns right around and says this:
“Yet the cleansing of the food is not wholly parabolic; there is a connection between
abrogation of the Levitical food laws and the removal of the barrier between Jews and
gentiles.”
I’m not intending to single out F.F. Bruce; however his comment is representative of so many
others. He (as do most Christian commentators) approaches the entire New Testament with
the viewpoint that the Levitical food laws (as well as all other Torah laws) have been abolished,
and so everything that happens in the New Testament must fit within that understanding no
matter if the text says something entirely different. Yes, Bruce agrees, Peter’s vision is a
parable. Yes, Bruce agrees, the animals are symbolic. Yes, he agrees, Peter himself
acknowledges that this has nothing to do with animals or food but rather this is about admitting
gentiles into the fold. However, in the opinion of Bruce and of many other gentile Bible scholars
this is equally about God abolishing the kosher food laws. So I suppose if that is the case then
the parable of the virgins must be equally and literally about virgins and lamps. The parable of
Jesus using the seeds falling onto rocky soil to characterize Believers must be equally and
literally about seeds, rocks and soil, and so on. I hope you can see this odd conclusion makes
this one parable (Peter’s vision), out of all other parables in the Bible, to operate entirely
differently whereby the fanciful objects that are symbolic suddenly become real and literal. Why
would Bruce and others claim such a thing? Because it is his and their foundational Christian
doctrine (regardless of what the Bible actually says) that gentile Christians have no duty to
follow God’s food laws, because Christ abolished the Law (something which Christ explicitly
said He did NOT do!) Let’s never miss an opportunity to revisit this foundational teaching of
Messiah Yeshua.
Matthew 5:17-19 CJB
17
"Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to
abolish but to complete.
18
Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or
a stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has happened.
19
So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be
3 / 8

called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will
be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
This statement made by Yeshua couldn’t be more definitive. He bluntly says He didn’t abolish
the Torah (the Law), and then He expands upon it, and then He warns against teaching
against what He just said. So admittedly this statement forms the nucleus of my worldview
about Yeshua and the relation of the Law of Moses to Believers, and from it I have full
confidence to challenge Church doctrines that are not in compliance with this commandment
from Christ. Outside of Salvation there is no other issue of this magnitude than our
understanding the place of the Law of Moses in the life of a Believer. And while I don’t have all
the answers about HOW to do it, without doubt the Law of Moses remains and we are to obey
it. And when we don’t obey, we sin.
Now let’s revisit the complex issue of the conversation between Peter and God (when Peter
was in a trance and essentially having what we might call an out-of-body experience). This is
important because it explains his vision on Jewish terms, which of course is how it is told. After
the heavenly voice tells Peter to kill and eat the unclean animals in the sheet, Peter responds
with “no” because he’s never eaten such things (no doubt Peter thought it was a test
otherwise he wouldn’t have emphatically refused God’s order). In Acts 10:14 Peter adds the
statement that he’s never eaten anything common or unclean. The CJB along with most other
English Bible versions replaces the word “common” with either “unholy” or “unclean”. Some
Bibles will replace the word “common” with “profane”. Unholy, unclean and profane are all
incorrect translations. The Greek word is koinos and it means “common” and that is the
proper translation. It is the same word from which we get the type of Greek that the New
Testament is written in: Koine Greek, meaning common Greek. The Greek of everyday
language and conversation.
In Biblical terms, however, “common” is not an adjective that means something that is
regularly done or is ordinary; rather “common” is a spiritual status assigned to certain objects
and people. The 3 possible states of spiritual status for humans and objects (as spelled out to
us in the Torah) are: holy, common, or unclean. Holy means sanctified, set apart for God.
Common means something that has not been set apart for God (but it doesn’t mean evil,
wicked, bad, or unclean). Common is kind of a neutral and natural state that exists in between
holy and unclean. And then the 3
rd
possible spiritual status is unclean. Unclean is a condition
of defilement that means an object or a person is not suitable for use by God; and to try to use
an object or person it in its unclean state for such a purpose is indeed wicked. Unclean is a
condition that is caused by something; nothing in its naturally created state is unclean.
Unclean food is food that has in someway been contaminated or mishandled. Unclean food is
otherwise kosher food, but something has ritually defiled it; thus unclean food must not be
consumed. What is important for us to understand is that there is no such designation as
“common” food. Common is not a food category, nor is it a God-ordained condition of edible
items. Common doesn’t apply to food. Holy food is a food category, and it is kosher food that
has been used for altar sacrifices. Only priests are allowed to eat certain portions of holy food
that has been brought as a sacrificial offering. So regular Jews (like Peter) can NOT eat holy
food; ever.
4 / 8

Rabbi Joseph Shulam points out that there is a food category called chullin that refers to
kosher food that has NOT been used for sacrifices and thus regular Jews can eat it. It is the
category name for every day food that regular Jews eat. So the rule is that regular Jews eat
chullin food, while only priests can eat holy food. In fact according to God’s laws the ONLY
food regular Jews can eat is chullin food. So Shulam says perhaps the word “common” is
being used in place of “chullin”. However if that is true, then Peter’s statement becomes all
the more strange because Peter claims that he has NEVER eaten food from the very food
category (chullin) that is the ONLY food category a regular Jew is allowed to eat (Peter was
not a priest). I hope you’re beginning to see the dilemma of this verse.
But there is an obvious solution to the dilemma. I told you last week that in the end, what is
happening here is that this vision is a parable, and so the food isn’t the subject but rather it is
merely the symbol of something else (soon we learn that “something else” is gentiles). This
understanding then explains why a term (common) that doesn’t apply to food but does apply
to human beings, is being used in the vision of the animals. And this is also why Peter was so
perplexed over the meaning of this vision because taken literally it makes no sense. The image
doesn’t match the narrative.
Let’s re-read a portion of Acts 10.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 10:17 – 29
Typically Bible commentators say that the reason for Peter being bewildered about the vision is
because God told him it was OK now to just forget the food laws and from here on he can eat
anything he wants to; but Peter simply couldn’t accept that. But as I just demonstrated, that
wasn’t the case at all. For one thing Peter had heard directly from Yeshua’s mouth that the
Torah wasn’t changed in the least, let alone abolished. Rather Peter was bewildered because
the terms applied to the food in his vision weren’t food terms; they were terms reserved for
describing the spiritual status of humans and objects. As he was no longer in his trance and
was now pondering this strange vision, the men that the Centurion Cornelius sent to fetch him
arrived at Shimon the Tanner’s house and asked about Peter. The Holy Spirit tells Peter that
these 3 men are looking for him, and that God has pre-planned this meeting so Peter doesn’t
need to be alarmed but he does need to go with them. So at this point Kefa doesn’t know what
is going on or what is supposed to happen. Under the circumstances if it was me I would
assume this was somehow connected to the vision and I imagine Kefa assumes that as well.
As Peter goes down from the roof to meet these men he asks their purpose. They reply that
they are here on behalf of the Roman Centurion Cornelius and that he is an upright man and a
God-fearer. This means to Peter that Cornelius is a gentile who worships the God of Israel, but
he has not been circumcised. That is, Cornelius has not gone so far in his beliefs that he has
converted and become a Jew. These men go on to explain that an angel appeared to their
master and told him to send for Peter, and that they were assigned to go to Yafo and escort
Peter back to Caesarea. There was no demand involved; it was all just matter of fact. No doubt
if Peter had not had his vision, and if the Spirit (in some unnamed way) hadn’t told Peter to go,
he would have been too fearful to go voluntarily.
5 / 8

It needs to be stated that at this moment Peter had no idea what God was up to. He had no
inkling that gentiles could be admitted to Christ’s Kingdom and could attain the same holy
spiritual status as the Hebrews. Why is that? Because the teachings of the Synagogue were
that gentiles were unclean; this was not disputed among Jews. It wasn’t that the Jews hated
their Roman oppressors so they simply didn’t want to associate with them and so called them
unclean as kind of a nasty epithet. Rather it was a given among Jews that God saw gentiles as
ritually unclean. But the truth is that according to the Torah gentiles were not created unclean;
they were created and classified by Yehoveh as just not holy; instead gentiles were created
spiritually common. And if we go back to our discussion of the vision of the animals in the
sheet then we understand what God was telling Peter. God wasn’t telling Peter that at one
time gentiles were unclean, but now He has made them clean. Rather He was telling Peter that
He made (He created) gentiles spiritually common, and thus Peter (and by extension, all of
Judaism) had no authorization to change the classification of gentiles to unclean. God was
straightening out Peter’s theology. This was not new theology or changed theology. This was
how it had always been since God declared Abraham as holy and set apart, and thus at that
moment divided and separated the human race into 2 parts: holy Hebrews and common
gentiles. But the Synagogue authorities had created a doctrine that overturned God’s
commands, and now God was dealing with it beginning with Peter and Cornelius.
Peter left with the men, but some of the other brothers (referring to Believers) tagged along.
This was an unusual situation and it showed wisdom for Peter to not go it alone. We find out in
the next chapter that 6 Believers went along with him. While Peter was traveling (about a 2 day
journey) Cornelius was gathering his relatives and close friends to his house to hear what
Peter had to say to them. He understood that whatever it was it would be highly important
since God Himself had arranged all this.
As Peter arrives he sees the throng awaiting him. I imagine it embarrassed him to have a
Roman Centurion fall on his face before him; and this was in front of all those people. So Peter
quickly says to get up; he’s only a man and not to be worshipped. Entering this gentile’s home
was unfamiliar territory; such an act was unthinkable to a Jew. And yet here he was, and at
God’s instruction to boot. Peter feels he needs to explain the situation to Cornelius and his
family and friends before things get underway. And it is important that we hear what he says in
the way he meant it.
Verse 28 in the CJB has Peter saying this:
CJB
Acts 10:28 He said to them, "You are well aware that for a man who is a Jew to have
close association with someone who belongs to another people, or to come and visit
him, is something that just isn't done. But God has shown me not to call any person
common or unclean;
However that is a very loose translation of what was said. Here is one that sticks more to the
actual meaning of the Greek:
RSV
Acts 10:28 and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to
associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should
6 / 8

not call any man common or unclean.
So Peter says it is unlawful to be doing what he is doing, which is to associate with, or go into
the dwelling place of, a gentile. The Greek word being translated as unlawful is athemitos. It is
a word that means to do something that is illicit, or breaks a law code, or is criminal. Peter is
not referring to the Law of Moses, he’s referring to Halakhah; Jewish Law. Tradition. So
immediately Peter deals with the issue of the purity laws as it pertains to gentiles; a touchy
subject to say the least. Peter understood and believed that Cornelius was a God-fearer; a
gentile that worshipped the God of Israel. So idolatry was of no issue. Nonetheless it didn’t
change Cornelius’s status from being a gentile so ritual purity issues remained as far as Jews
were concerned. Food was an especially big issue, of course, as it was the central part of
hospitality. But food wasn’t the only show stopper from the Jews’ perspective. As I mentioned
idolatry was another major issue as it was standard for gentiles to have god images in their
homes. Blasphemy also was an issue as were the loose sexual morals of gentiles as
compared to those of the Jews.
But then Peter says that God has shown him that he should not call any man common or
unclean. Again, the Greek word koinos is used meaning common; and the Greek word
akathartos is also used meaning unclean. So in the intervening 72 hours since Peter’s vision
and his arrival at Cornelius’s home, the meaning of the vision-parable has become clearer to
Peter; this is all about gentiles and their spiritual status before God.
Yet, while it is rather easy for us to understand why Peter would say that God showed him not
to call any man unclean, it is less easy to understand why he would also say that no man
should be called common. Recall that there are only 3 possible spiritual statuses for a human:
holy, common, or unclean. So on the surface it seems as if Peter is saying that God has
eliminated 2 of the 3 possible spiritual status conditions for humans (common and unclean),
which only leaves holy. So are we to take from this that Peter, and God, now see all human
beings on this planet as holy? No, of course not. So what exactly does this mean to
communicate? First of all, we have here humans talking in the usual way; neither Peter nor
Cornelius are theologians or scholars. So saying “any man” is not meant to be precise as in
“every single human being in existence”. What Peter and God are saying is that a) a gentile is
not unclean and shouldn’t be called as such. And b) that while common has been considered
as the natural spiritual status for gentiles, that indeed being elevated into the holy status (like
Hebrews are) is possible for gentiles. So gentiles aren’t permanently relegated as holding the
“common” status without hope of ever being upgraded to holy. But no doubt Peter didn’t
understand the breadth and depth of this new revelation. In fact it would be mostly Paul that
would try to articulate what this meant for gentiles, and then of course the relationship between
Jews and gentiles, in light of Christ’s advent.
I do want to repeat: this was NOT new theology. This was NOT that Christ’s death had
changed the spiritual status of gentiles from unclean (because gentiles weren’t unclean). It
was only new Halakhah for Peter and for virtually all Jews. God was only reinforcing and
instructing about what had always been. He was not changing the status of gentiles; they were
still common. Rather the Jewish Synagogue leaders had overturned God’s law on the subject
of gentiles, and now God was overriding the wrong doctrine of those Synagogue leaders; and
7 / 8

oh my, the trouble that was going to lead to!
But (and it is not clear to Peter yet that this is the case) gentiles who accepted Christ could be
elevated from their status as common to holy, and they could remain as gentiles. Was this the
first time, then, that gentiles could leave behind their common status and attain a holy status
(like the Hebrews enjoyed)? No! Gentiles had always had the option of leaving behind home,
family and nation and becoming a Hebrew. Such an offer was open to both male and female
gentiles (Ruth being one of the most famous cases of an unmarried woman making the
decision on her own to become a Hebrew, as she was a foreign widow). But the only means
for a gentile to gain holy status before the coming of Christ was to become a Hebrew.
Yeshua’s death and resurrection indeed changed that. Now through faith and trust in Him as
the Messiah and as God’s Son, gentiles could attain the spiritual status of holy. They did not
have to first become Hebrews; but it took time before this understanding took hold among the
Believing Jews.
This raised another sensitive and contentious issue because to become a Hebrew a male had
to be circumcised. And from the Jewish Believers’ viewpoint, why would a gentile want to have
a Jewish Messiah if he didn’t also want to be Jewish? Since for Jews circumcision was the
primary outward symbol that separated Hebrews from gentiles, then it still made no sense to
most members of The Way how a gentile could hope to accept Yeshua if he wouldn’t also
accept circumcision. And in a few more verses we see that issue arise in force as we’ll hear of
the Circumcision faction intervening. And this faction was embedded within the body of Jewish
Believers. So already we see that the Body of Believers was divided; at first it was divided into
Hebrew speaking Believers and Greek speaking Believers. Now we see that of those two
groups some formed the Circumcision faction that believed that while gentiles could accept
Yeshua, it didn’t change the requirement for them to be circumcised and therefore to
essentially become Jews. In other words, in their minds Christ enabled gentiles to have
Messiah Yeshua for Salvation but they had to stop being gentiles in order to do it. It is not at all
unlike the bulk of Christianity that has for 1800 years determined that Christ is for gentiles and
while a Jew can accept Jesus, first he has to renounce His Jewishness and essentially
become a gentile. One of the core missions of Seed of Abraham Ministries Torah Class is to
put the truth to this wrong-minded, manmade doctrine. Jews do NOT have to leave their
Jewishness behind to accept Messiah; Yeshua came as the Jewish Messiah.
We will finish up Acts chapter 10 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8