Not Only a Matter of Diet

Where do you get the idea that "They were certainly accusing Peter of eating unclean meats"? That is an assumption nowhere mentioned or even hinted at in the texts.

The issue, as clearly stated, was Peter was accused of eating with uncircumcised men—Cornelius and his family. You can read about it in Acts 10:17-48. Nowhere is anything said that Peter ate unclean meats or was accused of that.

Why was it an issue that Peter ate with uncircumcised men? As Peter acknowledged in Acts 10:28, it was considered unlawful for a Jew such as Peter "to keep company with or go to one of another nation"—i.e., a non-Israelite or gentile such as the Roman centurion Cornelius.

We see this prohibition also reflected in such passages as John 4:9 ("For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans") and John 18:28, where Christ's accusers would not enter the Roman governor Pilate's dwelling because that would "defile" them.

The issue was, as stated, Peter eating with uncircumcised men—not eating unclean foods. We must be careful not to read something into the verses that simply isn't there.

Also, Cornelius was what is described as a "God-fearer" (Acts 10:2). This was a term of the day for a gentile who lived by all the biblical laws (such as observing the Sabbath and avoiding unclean meats). They had essentially converted to the religion of the Jewish people of the day, with the exception that they had not undergone circumcision to become considered fully Jewish.

You can also find reference to these "God-fearers" in Acts 13:16 and 26, where Paul addresses both Israelites AND "you who fear God"—a different group which is these gentiles who had essentially converted to the Jewish religion of the day. The point is that since Cornelius was one of these "God-fearers," he wouldn't have been eating unclean meats anyway, nor would he have served unclean meats to Peter. So again, it's an incorrect assumption to think that Peter would've eaten unclean meats.

You are not alone—people have misread this section of Scripture for years.

When I read your first message, I made a wrong assumption. This short article is part of a larger booklet titled “What Does the Bible Teach About Clean and Unclean Meats?” I had assumed you had read that larger piece. Now, from your comments, I see that isn’t the case. I would suggest you read that piece in its entirety, which you can find here:
www.ucg.org/booklet/what-does-bible-teach-about-clean-and-unclean-meats/

It directly addresses some of your questions, such as the entire context of Acts 10-11 and what Paul wrote in Romans 14, in great detail.

Let’s look at a few key points in Acts 10-11 that many people misunderstand.

First, many people assume that Jesus’ death ended the biblical laws prohibiting eating unclean meats. But if that were true, how can one explain Peter’s response to the vision and the voice telling him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat” (Acts 10:11-13). Notice Peter’s response: “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean” (verse 14).

This took place years after Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, and yet Peter clearly states, “I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” Why, if those distinctions between clean and unclean had been abolished, had Peter not eaten any unclean meats years after Jesus has supposedly abolished those distinctions? This alone should tell us that the common view is wrong.

After reading about the vision many readers, without finishing the account, assume they know the meaning of the vision—that God told Peter we are now free to eat any kind of animal flesh. In context, however, these scriptures show that this is not at all what Peter understood. On the contrary, even after seeing the vision three times, Peter still “wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant” (verse 17). Peter instinctively understood that there was something about the vision that he did not understand!

What was it that he did not understand? It wasn’t long until Peter realized the true significance of the vision. And what was that? It was that “God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (verse 28).

The point wasn’t about animal flesh at all—it was about human beings! Read Peter’s own explanation of the vision: “God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean”! Recognizing the real intent of the vision, Peter then baptized these gentiles whom God had called into the Church (verses 45-48).

As we see from reading further in the account, this vision didn’t concern unclean meats at all. Rather, it concerned people. Because the Jewish religious leaders at the time of Christ considered gentiles to be unclean, this vision corrected this common misconception that had been carried over into the early Church. It demonstrated that God was now beginning to offer salvation to members of any race, including gentiles.

Far from abolishing God’s instructions against eating unclean meats, these verses show that, about a decade after Christ's death, Peter had continued to keep the biblical food laws. Peter obviously had not assumed that God had annulled His own food laws or that Christ's death and resurrection rendered them obsolete. From Peter's own words we see that he continued to faithfully follow those laws about clean and unclean meats.

Peter realized that the puzzling vision could not be annulling God's instructions, which is why he “thought about the vision” until he understood its true meaning (verses 17-19, 28)—that gentiles could become members of the Church upon repentance and faith, too (verses 34-35, 45-48).

If you want to learn more about “God-fearers,” I’d suggest you do some research on the Internet. Here are a few comments from some books on my shelf about the first few verses of Acts 10, where Cornelius is introduced:

“ ‘God fearing:’ The term used of one who was not a full Jewish proselyte but who believed in one God and respected the moral and ethical teachings of the Jews. ‘About three in the afternoon:’ Another indication that Cornelius followed Jewish religious practices. Three in the afternoon was a Jewish hour of prayer . . .” (New International Version Study Bible).

“‘Devout man who feared God’ identifies Cornelius as a ‘God-fearer’ (cf. v. 22; 13:16, 26), a Gentile who worshiped Israel’s God and was in some way attached to a synagogue but who had not submitted to Jewish conversion rites (esp. circumcision)” (English Standard Version Study Bible).

“God-fearers were non-Jews who believed in one God, attended the synagogue and respected the moral and ethical teachings of the Jews but who did not fully embrace all of the Jewish customs, such as the rite of circumcision . . .” (Archaeological Study Bible).

“God fearers respected Jewish beliefs and customs (including food laws and especially special days). They often associated with the Jews, but they were unwilling to become full-fledged proselytes, since this required that they be circumcised . . .” (Holman Christian Standard Bible Study Bible).

As for your question about where God the Father or Jesus Christ told Christians or Jews not to associate with gentiles, I have yet to find any scripture that says that. That was clearly the teaching of the religious authorities of the day, as we see from such verses as John 4:9, 18:28 and Acts 21:28. But that was part of the added rules and regulations they added that Jesus Christ condemned. He ignored this manmade prohibition, as we see from His association with gentiles in John 4:9 (Samaria) and Matthew 15:21 (Tyre and Sidon).

The Exodus itself shows that a “mixed multitude” came with the Israelites when they left Egypt (Exodus 12:38), and God explained that His laws were to apply to “the stranger” as well as the Israelites (Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 15:16; Deuteronomy 31:12), so I cannot see where the Jewish religious leaders came up with this prohibition against associating with gentiles.