INTRODUCTION
No
more than 150 years before the heavenly voice was heard, saying, “Rise, Peter;
kill and eat” (Acts 10:13), the author of the apocryphal work 2 Maccabees
penned an account, describing what absolute, uncompromising fealty to Yahweh,
the God of Abraham, looked like in the context of the second Jewish
commonwealth. Chapter 7 of this work
recounts a story of a poor mother and her seven sons.[1] One by one, these young men were grotesquely
tortured and murdered by the hand of Antiochus for their unflinching commitment
to the food laws laid down in the Law of Moses.[2] Finally, the mother, who had encouraged each
of her sons in their resolve to obey God rather than the tyrant king, was
killed also. Against this heritage of
obdurate adherence to Yahweh’s prohibitions against eating any unclean food,
Peter, seeing a sheet full of unclean creatures is commanded to “Rise…kill[3]
and eat”! Underlying Luke’s account of Peter’s dealings
with Cornelius are the very real problems that were faced by first-century
Jewish believers because of their Jewish circumstances and traditions.[4]
In addition to
this radical historical-cultural-religious background, the importance of
Peter’s vision and attending events is made plain by the extended space the
unit is afforded in the overall narrative of the book and the carefulness of
Luke’s presentation of the account. This
unit, the Cornelius event, runs from 10:1—11:18, and is again recounted by
Peter at the Jerusalem council in 15:7—11.
The content, as well as the sheer volume of the account, emphasizes the
importance of the event in Luke’s history and theology. “Cornelius’s description of his vision
affords an opportunity of repeating part of a narrative very important in
Luke’s history, as Peter’s description of his vision in Ch. 11:5ff. affords an
opportunity of repeating another part.”[5] With the greatest sensitivity to the Jewish
laws and heritage, Luke couches Peter’s vision in a sufficiently large context,
wherein his painstaking recounting of the recapitulations reveals the divine
origin of Peter’s vision and the attending events.
The following
will, therefore, attempt to understand the significance Peter’s vision in its
biblical-theological setting. It will
accomplish this by arguing that the kosher laws recorded in Torah are the
background for the vision; and, of the various interpretations of the kosher
laws, the symbolic-anthropological view is best, granting a careful word-study
of the crucial terms, and concluding that the vision abrogates the letter of
the kosher laws, although the spirit of the law remains in effect, being
manifest in terms of the physical evidence of the Holy Spirit, which thus
distinguishes the people of God from all others.
PETER’S
VISION IN ITS NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXT
A
couple relevant observations of the immediate context of the vision are
warranted for this thesis and for correctly understanding the vision. First, the introductory remark of the angel’s
directions to Cornelius carries the reader’s mind back to Torah, and is
arguably intended by Luke to do so.
Cornelius was praying when the angelic messenger came to him; it was
“about the ninth hour of the day” (i.e., 3:00pm; Acts 10:3a). This was the time of the afternoon sacrifice
in the temple.[6] So, while the aroma of the sacrifice is
rising to God from the temple in Jerusalem, the angel interrupts Cornelius’
prayer, saying, “Cornelius…Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial
before God” (vv 3b—4 NASB). As Bruce observes, “The angel’s language here
is full of sacrificial terminology such as we find in the early chapters of
Leviticus.”[7] Cornelius’
prayer had ascended (anabainō), as
did the evening meal-offering;[8]
it ascended as a “memorial” (mnēmosunon)
before God. Regarding this term, “Its
roots go back to the OT (Exod. 17:14; Lev. 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12) and Judaism (Sir.
38:11; 45:16; 50:16; Tob.12:12; 1QS 8:1—9).
It is an offering made in commemoration to God that God accepts as
pleasing (Rom. 12:1—2; Phil. 4:18; Heb. 13:15—16).[9] God, therefore, accepts Cornelius’ worship,
and Luke describes this acceptance in terms of the prescribed sacrificial rites
laid down in Torah and closely related to the temple. Thus, Witherington speaks of Cornelius giving
a sacrifice that honors God outside the temple.[10] These observations will have growing
significance when evaluating proper OT background for the vision.
The
second reflection worthy of note is in reference to the contents of the sheet,
which contained the creatures of the vision, and Peter’s revulsive reaction
toward them. The kinds or categories of
animals listed, “all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the
earth and birds of the air” (10:11 NASB), where the three kinds recognized in
the OT (cf. Gen 6:20; Rom 1:23).[11]
“The contents of the sheet were animals that would be unclean and therefore unfit for eating in terms of the Jewish law
found in Leviticus 11; whether there were any clean animals…is not stated, but
the implication is that there were none.”[12] Bock carefully notices Peter’s initial
repulsion and refusal. Peter’s emphatic
rejection of the proposal to kill and prepare a meal of the unclean creatures
is made obvious by Luke’s double negation, “By no means (mēdamōs),
Lord; for I have never (oudepote) eaten…unclean” (Acts 10:14
ESV). Peter’s double negative is readily
met with its divine foil. “The [divine]
reply is emphatically made with a pronoun plus a negative (σύ μή, su me) that matches Peter’s earlier
refusal…the threefold presentation reinforces that God is speaking and is to be
believed.”[13] It appears, thus, that Peter’s vision was
primarily concerning the OT kosher laws; they were being contravened, as a new
era had dawn in the coming of the Messiah.[14] Nevertheless, the whole vision left Peter
“inwardly perplexed” (v 17); the vision’s effect on interpreters has been
little different.
THE
IMMEDIATE POINT OF THE VISION
Interpreters
struggle with the fact that while Peter’s vision deals with clean and unclean
foods, Peter and the Jerusalem believers interpret it to refer to people.[15]
This dilemma has caused a divide over the immediate point of the vision,
leading some to think that it deals only with people and others that its
central concern is the abrogation of the kosher laws.
There
is overwhelming consensus that the matter of the vision is decidedly the kosher
laws. However, Jarvell challenges this
view, saying that the decree is only about people, not food. His primary argument in favor of this view is
that the food distinctions still appear to be in place at the Jerusalem council
in Acts 15.[16] Bock wisely counters that the point at the
Jerusalem council is how Jews view such matters, not that God commands such for
the church.[17] Had the kosher laws been regarded as still
binding by the time of the Jerusalem council, there would have been no better
time for the circumcision party to appeal to them; however, that is not what
happened. Therefore, the food
distinctions of the kosher laws were not still viewed as binding at the council
of Acts 15.
As
mentioned above, that the driving point of the vision was the final abrogation
of the kosher laws is scholarly consensus.
Even among liberal scholars, who generally portray the vision as
parabolic or allegorical (wherein the unclean food is put for unclean persons),
the kosher law view is accepted as de
facto. As Baird confesses, “It is
evident that the point of the vision is not Gentile inclusion in the church but
the question of ritual regulations concerning food.”[18] In agreement, Bruce says, “The abolition of
the Jewish ceremonial barriers was pressed home in the vision with special
reference to the food-laws.”[19] Therefore, “The point of the vision was the
Hebraic (with OT foundation) kosher
laws and tradition. The primary focus in
Peter’s vision was upon clean/unclean animals for food.”[20]
The
determined position that the vision is primarily with regard to kosher laws
seems to only decide for one horn of the hermeneutical dilemma mentioned above,
while ignoring Peter’s own application of the literal meaning of the
vision. Marshall summarizes the solution
best, saying,
Not all commentators have been able to
see the relevance of the dream to Peter’s immediate situation, and some have
been tempted to treat the dream allegorically, as declaring all men clean, so that Peter need not be
afraid of going to a Gentile household.
This allegorical interpretation is forced and artificial, although it
can find a basis 11:12 and 15:9, and thus some have argued that the dream is a
secondary addition to the story. It is
more likely, therefore, that the point is that the Lord’s command frees Peter
from any scruples about going to a Gentile home and eating whatever might be
set before him. It would be a short step
from recognizing that Gentile food was clean to realizing that Gentiles
themselves were ‘clean’ also.[21]
To
sum up this section, the angel’s introductory remark to Cornelius spoke of his
prayers and alms in OT cultic language, sacrificial terminology, which takes
the reader back to Leviticus. Likewise,
the content of the sheet that Peter saw in the vision was full of unclean
animals, described in the tripartite categories of the Torah. Finally, the primary point and thrust of Peter’s
vision is with regard to the kosher laws and their formal abrogation: God has
the prerogative to declare what is and is not clean.[22] All this notwithstanding, there are at least
two other candidates represented as being proper OT background for Peter’s
vision.
CANDIDATES
FOR OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND
Keener
draws to our attention that “[i]n another vision half a millennium before
[Peter’s], God had similarly called Ezekiel, a priest, to eat something
unclean, and had offered the same protest.”[23] Indeed, the language of Ezekiel (LXX) and
Peter’s initial responses are strikingly similar:
|
Acts 10:14
ὁ δὲ Πέτρος εἶπε· μηδαμῶς,
Κύριε· ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον.
|
Eze 4:14
καὶ εἶπα μηδαμῶς, κύριε θεὲ τοῦ
Ισραηλ· ἰδοὺ ἡ ψυχή μου οὐ μεμίανται ἐν ἀκαθαρσίᾳ,
|
However, apart from the linguistic parallel,
there is little between the two episodes that would indicate more than two
pious Jews reacting to a proposal they both find utterly repugnant.
Much
more promising is the candidacy of the latter-prophet, Jonah (in fact, the
paradigm of his book). Marshall suitably
summarizes the extended parallel between Jonah and the Cornelius event, which
has been noted by Robert Wall. “[B]oth
Peter and Jonah start from Joppa and go to the Gentiles, both protest against
their commissions and need fresh revelations from God, and both have successful
missions, the legitimacy of which is questioned.”[24] The intrigue of Wall’s observation is
undeniable. It appears likely that Luke
so framed the Cornelius event as to allow Jonah’s book to serve as a
paradigmatic basis for interpreting the Cornelius event, and for adding to the
validity of divine authority of Peter’s vision and his subsequent obedience to
the calling. There is, Luke could be
arguing, OT precedents for commands and callings such as Peter experienced,
namely that of Jonah.
Although Jonah may
serve in this paradigmatic way, Wall’s proposal lacks in that there is little
if any correspondence between Peter’s vision proper and the revelation given to
Jonah (not to mention the nature of the respective prophets’ protest,
etc.). Granting the foregoing,
therefore, it may safely be concluded that it is indeed the kosher laws
recorded in Lev 11 and Deut 14 that supply the precise OT background for
Peter’s vision proper. If so, a suitable
question would be, What is the nature and purpose of these laws?
VARIOUS
THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE KOSHER LAWS
In 1981, Gordon
Wenham produced a comprehensive evaluation of the various interpretations of
the kosher laws throughout history.
Therein, he generalizes these interpretations of three main headings: hygiene, religious associations, and
symbolic. The symbolic view is then
subdivided into two related symbolic models:
moral and anthropological.[25]
The
hygiene view
“Probably the most
popular explanation of the food laws is hygiene.”[26] Not only is it the most popular view, it is
also a very old one.[27] A primary reason for the popularity of this
view is the great advancements in medical science in the last century. It is often heard that Moses was receiving
information that so antedated our understanding of health and medicine that it
is a testimony to the divine origin of the laws. Clements, for example says, “[w]hat we have
here is a simple and comprehensive guidebook to food and personal hygiene.”[28] This view, however, faces a number of
difficulties.
Wenham
lists several of the difficulties surrounding the hygienic view. First, there were a number of cultures
surrounding Israel, which often held to certain classifications of
clean/unclean animals. Secondly, it is far
from self-evident that all of the animals listed in the kosher laws are actually
harmful to one’s health, e.g., the camel.
Third, there is nothing within the context of the laws that appeal to
physical health and hygiene as a ground motive for avoiding the foods. Instead, it is most often the animals
locomotion or eating habits that serve as the grounds for avoidance (e.g., Lev
11:3—12, 20—23, 26—31, etc.).[29] Sprinkle would add that, “[m]ost unhealthy
foods (e.g., poisonous plants) and infectious diseases are not mentioned,
surprisingly, if hygiene were the purpose.[30] Finally, it cannot be ignored that if hygiene
were the primary purpose and benefit of the kosher laws, then one must wonder
at the great disservice that Christ (e.g., Mk 7:19) and the early church did in
abrogating them. As Spinkle says,
“[h]ygiene…is at most a secondary explanation.”[31] Sprinkle is generous.
Religious/cultic
associations view
Another
explanation of the kosher laws is the religious or cultic associations attached
to unclean animals. Some of the unclean
animals listed in the kosher laws were part and parcel of the religious rites
and worship of the pagan systems round about Israel. The strength of this explanation is that it
brings the focus on shaping Israel into a holy nation, a peculiar and distinct
people. This view accounts for only a
few of the animals, however. “In
general, Israel used much the same animals for sacrifice as her neighbors…if
use in contemporary religions were ground for making animals unclean, the bull
should have been an abomination in Israel in view of its role in Canaanite and
Egyptian culture. Yet in Israel the bull
was the best and most valued of the sacrificial animals.”[32]
The religious association view cannot account for much of the data, and ancient
Near Eastern background studies contradict the thesis.
Symbolic
view
The
symbolic view, as mentioned above, is subdivided into two groups: the moral
view and the anthropological view.
Speaking in general, Sprinkle rightly remarks, “[s]ymbolism…must be the
primary purpose of these laws.”[33]
A seeming problem
with the symbolic view, regardless of which particular approach is taken, is
that it introduces a fair measure of arbitrariness into God’s laws. This, however, is not as great a problem as
it may appear on the surface. Even
arbitrary rules cultivate the virtue of self-control, a step toward the
attainment of holiness, explains Sprinkle.[34] Thus, although the brute statute, regarding a
particular food restriction may appear, respecting the specific animal,
somewhat arbitrary and unreasoned, it may be discerned within the broader
context of Torah that the seeming mere will of God is far from unprincipled and
disteleological; the goal is to make Israel holy as Yahweh is holy, to make
Israel like Yahweh. It can be taken for
granted that the kosher laws were an intrinsic part of God transforming Israel
into a holy nation, and therefore must somehow play a role in their growth in
holiness. In this regard, Sprinkle’s
observation is point on.
Symbolic:
the moral view
The moral view
maintains that the animals determined unclean in the kosher laws symbolize
immoral persons and their behavior. This
was certainly one of the favorites among the early church fathers.[35] A painfully obvious flaw in this theory is
that there are no objective criteria for judging which animal behaviors
correspond to which immoral actions in persons.
“[I]t is a little better than intuitive guesswork…The symbolism
discovered depends largely in the commentator’s imagination, and there is no
attempt to prove that the alleged symbolism really underlies the legal
definitions.” Wenham concludes,
“[U]nless greater discipline can be introduced into symbolist interpretation,
it will always be more liable to represent the whims of the commentator that
the purpose of the law.”[36] The symbolic-moral view is not convincing.
Symbolic:
anthropological
Beyond question,
Mary Douglas’ work in this area has revolutionized the conversation about the
kosher/purity laws. In her 1966 book, Purity and Danger, the thesis was that
the laws of Leviticus were not merely negative prohibitions but were also
positive, exhorting the people toward purity, wholeness, and integrity.[37] Wenham offers a succinct summary.
Douglas argues that the same insistence
on wholeness underlies the uncleanness laws in Lev. 11/Deut. 14. The animal world is divided into three
spheres: those that fly in the air, those that walk on the land, and those that
swim in the seas (cf. Gen 1:20—30). Each
sphere has a particular mode of motion associated with it. Birds have two wings to fly with, and two
feet for walking: fish have fins and scales to swim with; land animals have
hooves to run with. The clean animals
are those that conform to these standard pure types. Those creatures which in some way transgress
the boundaries are unclean. Thus fish
without fins and scales are unclean (Lev. 11:10; Deut. 14:10). Insects which fly but which have many legs
are unclean, whereas locusts which have wings and only two hopping legs are
clean (Lev. 11:20—23). Animals with an
indeterminate form of motion, i.e., which “swarm,” are unclean (Lev.
11:41—44). “Holiness requires that
individuals shall conform to the class to which they belong.” In so far as some animals do not conform,
they are unclean.[38]
Since
the time of its publishing, Douglas’ thesis has been subject to much peer
review and debate. The central objection
to Douglas’ theory was that it lacked the links between the human and animal
world necessary for a solid conclusion, much like the moral view. In a 1972 article, Douglas sought to answer
this objection.[39] “In a series of diagrams she demonstrates
that each sphere of the animal world is structured in a very similar fashion to
the human world…There is such a degree of isomorphism between these different
spheres that it is likely that, in the Israelite mind at least, a connection
was seen between one sphere and the other”[40]
The
results of Douglas’ studies lead to the conclusion that the kosher laws
represented a profound system for understanding holiness in the context of
Yahweh’s redemption of Israel as a special people. The division into clean (edible) foods and
unclean (inedible) foods corresponded to the division between holy Israel and
the Gentile world.[41] These laws, therefore, signified and embodied
Israel’s identity and status as Yahweh’s covenant people.
Summary
of the various views on the kosher laws
The
view that holds that the kosher laws represent a comprehensive guide for
personal health and hygiene must be excluded.
This is an anachronistic imposition of a modernistic reading of the text. There is no internal evidence that the
hygienic aspect played any part in the purpose of the kosher laws. The religious/cultic association view is
ironically contradicted by an understanding of the similarities between which
creatures the surrounding cultures held as clean and unclean and suitable for
sacred service, often paralleled by the same in Israel. Of the two alternatives within the symbolic
view, the moral view simply lacks a means of criteria for judging which
behaviors in the animal world correspond to those in the human world. This view is fanciful but far from
persuasive. None of these perspectives
on the kosher laws appear to satisfy the data.
The
second alternative of the symbolic view, the anthropological view, presents a
careful analysis of the data and concludes with concepts that are perfectly
consonant with the context of Torah and Yahweh’s redemption of Israel from the
house of bondage in Egypt.
WORD
STUDY OF CRUCIAL OT TERMS
A careful look at
some of the key statements regarding the kosher laws confirms the
anthropological view. Torah teaches us
that Yahweh is a separating God, who sets apart, divides, and distinguishes one
thing from another. This he does in
creation and redemption. Two terms that are
used in the OT speak of Yahweh’s actions in separating, which are, palah and badal.[42]
In creation, Yahweh “separates”
(badal) light from darkness (Gen
1:4), waters below from waters above (vv 6—7); he creates the celestial
luminaries, which separate the day from the night (v 14), and finally two great
luminaries, the sun and the moon, which are to rule over their respective domains
by imitating Yahweh, separating the light from the darkness (v 18a). Yahweh as creator separates and
distinguishes; when his creation imitates him in this, in their proper domain,
he sees it as “good” (v 18b).
In
Israel’s redemption from Egypt, Yahweh’s Presence in the land, mighty to save,
is made clear to all by means of him making a distinction (palah) between his people, Israel, and Pharaoh and his people,
Egypt. In the fourth plague, the swarm
of flies, Yahweh announces that he will set apart, make a distinction, between
Israel and Egypt. “But on that day I
will set apart (palah) the land of
Goshen, where my people dwell, so that no swarm of flies shall be there, that you may know that I am Yahweh in the
midst of the land. Thus I will put a
distinction (palah; or “redemption,”
see ESV text note) between my people and your people” (Ex 8:21—22). Likewise, Yahweh made a “distinction” between
the livestock of Israel and that of Egypt in the fifth plague (9:4). Finally, in the last plague, with the death
of the firstborn of Egypt, Yahweh again sets Israel apart, thus making the
divine action one of salvation for Israel and judgment for Egypt, “that you
[Pharaoh] may know that Yahweh makes a distinction (palah) between Egypt and Israel” (11:7).
After
the golden calf incident (Ex 32), there is the great threat that Yahweh’s
Presence will no longer go with Israel.
Moses, in desperate intercessory pleading for Israel, says, “For how
shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your
people? Is it not you going with us, so
that we are distinct (palah), I and your people, from every
other people on the face of the earth?” (Ex 33:16).[43] It is, therefore, Yahweh’s Presence that
makes Israel distinct from all other nations.
“Only Yahweh’s Presence with Moses and Israel separates them from all
other people throughout the world. It is
the lesson Moses learned on Sinai at the time of his call: he alone was not
equal to the task of challenging Pharaoh, but he was not to be alone.”[44]
Yahweh’s
Presence with his people was to result in their becoming like him, imitating
him in even their mundane, everyday lives, e.g., their diets. The explanatory remarks surrounding the
kosher laws points to the purpose of Israel’s conformity to the character of
Yahweh, their creator-redeemer.
Appropriately, following on the heels of the ordination of the
priesthood, Moses commands Aaron, “You are to distinguish (badal) between the holy
and the common, and between the unclean and the clean” (Lev 10:10), and Aaron
was to teach all of Israel to do the same (v 11). Yahweh separates Israel (his Presence making
them holy and clean) from the unclean nations for himself; Israel was therefore
to make the distinction between the clean and the unclean. This is patently clear from the explanation
regarding the ground for the kosher laws in the next chapter of Leviticus. Leviticus 11:44—47 reads thus:
For I am Yahweh your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy,
for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that
crawls on the ground. For I am Yahweh who brought you up out
of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am
holy. This is the law about beast and
bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature
that swarms on the ground, to make a
distinction (badal) between the
unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and
the living creature that may not be eaten.
Likewise, Lev 20:22—26, the closing
of the purity section of the book, reads thus:
You shall therefore keep all my
statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to
live may not vomit you out. And you
shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you,
for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them. But I have said to you, 'You shall inherit
their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and
honey.' I am Yahweh your God, who has
separated (badal) you from the
peoples. You shall therefore separate (badal)
the clean beast from the unclean, and the
unclean bird from the clean. You shall not make yourselves detestable by
beast or by bird or by anything with which the ground crawls, which I have set apart badal) for you to hold unclean. You shall be holy to me, for I Yahweh am holy and have separated (badal) you from the peoples, that you should be
mine.
Finally, the kosher laws of
Leviticus are paralleled in Deuteronomy 14:3—21, and are prefaced with the
remark, “For you are a people holy to Yahweh your God, and Yahweh has chosen
you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are
on the face of the earth” (14:2; cf. Ex 33:16c).
The
salient point of these explanatory remarks, framing the kosher laws, is that
Yahweh had separated Israel from the nations (Egypt in redemption and those of
Canaan in sanctification) to be his own special people, who, through their
analogical separation of clean and unclean foods, would provide physical
evidence of their set-apartness by imitating Yahweh in making clean/unclean distinctions. These dietary distinctions were signs and
seals of their special covenantal status and Yahweh’s Presence amidst
them. The kosher laws, their maintenance
and application, were, therefore, physical evidences of the Presence of the
otherwise invisible God of Israel, Yahweh.
To
summarize this section: Despite appearances, the kosher laws were not
arbitrary; they had a specific and divine design. And just like the moral laws expressed in the
10 commandments, there is a sense in which the kosher laws are absolute and
unchanging, since they are a reflection of the unchanging character of God in
the economy of creation and redemption.
In creation, Yahweh made distinctions, separated, and distinguished one
aspect of creation from another, according to his infinite wisdom (cf. Ps
104:24). He then created “rulers” that
would exercise a derivative authority in their respective domains, and
obediently serve him. That obedience and
service is manifest in the creatures imitating Yahweh in making distinctions:
as Yahweh separated “light from darkness” (Gen 1:4), so also the rulers over
the expanse, the sun and moon, “separate the light from the darkness” (v
18a). This is what Yahweh, the God of
Israel, calls “good” (v 18b): his creatures making distinctions.
So too in
redemption, Yahweh creates and redeems Israel through a series of distinctions,
separating Israel from Egypt (Ex 8:21—22; 9:4, etc.), which was a physical
evidence that Yahweh was present in the midst of the land. Israel’s continued distinction was contingent
upon Yahweh’s Presence with them in their journeys and eventual settlement in
the land of Canaan. The kosher laws were
representative of Israel’s conformity to and reflection of Yahweh, their
creator-redeemer, who made them clean with his Presence and separated them from
the unclean nations. The kosher laws,
therefore, served as immediate physical evidences of Israel’s separation from
all other peoples, as Yahweh’s own special and holy nation.
APPLICATION
OF THE OT THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSION ON ACT 10
Returning
to Peter’s vision and the attending events, Sprinkle’s conclusion provides a
good point of departure for the application of the OT theological conclusions
on the Cornelius event.
The abolition of the food laws conveys
deep theological significance. The
division of animals into clean and unclean symbolized the separation between
Israelites and Gentiles. The abolition
of the kosher laws then symbolizes a breaking down of the barrier between Jews
and Gentiles. As seen in God’s lesson to
Peter in Acts 10 – 11, God now declares the Gentiles “clean.” In the new messianic age the principle that
God’s people are to be separate (holy) from the world remains, but the lines
drawn are no longer ethnic in character.[45]
The reason that Sprinkle’s conclusion is sound
is the fact that the kosher laws were intended as symbolic. The signifiers, clean and unclean foods, had
as their signified Israel and the nations respectively. Moreover, Sprinkle correctly observes that
the principle of “separation” remains in the new messianic age.
Granting
the cogency of the foregoing conclusions, regarding the OT kosher laws in their
redemptive-historical context, Sprinkle’s conclusion may be augmented with some
further observations. Sprinkle notes
that the principle of separation remains in the new age. He states negatively that it is no longer
based on things which may be ethnically construed. What, though, is the positive answer regarding
the continuity of the separation principle, especially in Acts 10?
The
positive answer regarding the continuity of the principle of separateness is
rooted in the divine act which makes a people separate, whether under the old
covenant or the new. In the original
exodus, it was Yahweh’s Presence that made the people Israel separate, holy,
and clean, amidst the unclean nations.
This divine action of separation, revealed first in creational
distinctions (Gen 1), was the basis for the kosher laws. The kosher laws (along with Sabbath and
circumcision) were a sort of sign and seal of Israel’s redemption from Egypt,
being called out of the nations as a special people to God. Therefore, the continuity of principle rests
on the divine action of God separating a people for himself, which was
physically evidenced in the kosher laws.
In
this light, the Cornelius event comes together, and the continuity of the
principle of separation is preserved.
Concluding his recollection of the angelic vision, Cornelius says to
Peter, “therefore, we are all here in the presence
of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord” (Acts
10:33). The stage is set, therefore,
with Cornelius’ recognition of the “presence of God,” which was seen to be
crucial in the OT, especially in Ex 33:16.
In verses 34—43, Peter preaches the gospel to Cornelius and his
household. The consequences were
astonishing to Peter and his company.
Accompanying the Word, “the Holy
Spirit fell on all who heard the word” (v 44). Herein the divine action is discerned. The Spirit, the Holy—that is, set-apart, setting-apart—Spirit, and his Presence is experienced. The divine act of making a clean people out
of unclean has happened, just as it had for Israel in Egypt; God was present! Additionally, as God’s Presence was manifest
in mighty signs and wonders in salvation and judgment via the plagues (e.g., Ex
7:3), the Presence of God the Holy Spirit, otherwise invisible, was manifest by
the physical signs of “speaking in tongues and extolling God” by Cornelius and his
house (Acts 10:46).[46] In this way, the continuity of the principle
is maintained, in that the separation of both the old and new covenant people
of God depends on the divine purgative and action of God calling out a people
from and from within the nations.[47]
With the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, the new exodus had begun.
With
the divine action accomplished in the manifest indwelling Presence of God the
Holy Spirit, there awaits a human action.
The kosher laws served as a sacramental rite of the old covenant, along
with Sabbath and circumcision, which objectively distinguished Israel from all
other peoples. Immediately following the
Spirit’s manifest Presence, Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just
as we have?” (v 47). Therefore, just as
the kosher laws—the human action—served to provide an objective sign of
distinction between the old covenant church and all the other people on the
face of the earth, so also does baptism under the new covenant. So there is utter continuity in principle
given the divine action and the resultant human action. Only the token of the human action has
changed, kosher law (and circumcision) being superseded by baptism as the new
signifier of separateness and covenantal identity.
The
historic Protestant confessions have expressed this truth for centuries. For instance, the Westminster Confession says
of the sacraments and their trans-covenantal continuity, “[t]he sacraments of
the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual
things signified and exhibited, were, for
substance, the same with those of the New” (XXVIII: I). The rites and
letter of the kosher laws have been abrogated, yet the substance or essence of
the law has not. As the Belgic
confession puts it: “We believe that the ceremonies and figures of the law
ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so
that the use of them must be abolished among Christians: yet the truth and
substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their
completion” (XXV). Additionally,
regarding the principle of separation and distinction from the nations, “[s]acraments
are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace…to put a visible difference
between those that belong to the church and the rest of the world” (WCF, XXVII: I); and again, the Belgic
says of baptism, “we are…set apart from all other people and alien
religions…bearing [Christ’s] mark and sign” (XXXIV).
CONCLUSION
It has been seen that in its context Peter’s
vision and the Cornelius event pushes the reader’s mind back into Torah through
the sacrificial language of the angelic pronouncement to Cornelius and the
content of the sheet in Peter’s vision, teeming with unclean animals, pointing
to Lev 11 and Deut 14. This passage has
been a stumbling block for many interpreters.
The hermeneutical dilemma causes many to contend for one horn or the other. Some argue that the vision was about food
only, others say, people only. Having
determined that the OT kosher laws are indeed the proper background for Peter’s
vision; and, that the symbolic anthropological view is the correct
interpretation of the kosher laws in their original context, one may safely
conclude that the primary point and concern of the vision was the kosher laws
and their abrogation, and consequently, it was about people, since the kosher
laws were symbolic signifiers of the distinction between the Jews and the
nations. The careful study of two
central OT terms, badal and palah, confirmed the probability of the
anthropological view. The purpose of the
kosher laws is rooted in the divine action of Yahweh creating and redeeming
Israel, through separation; Israel, therefore, was to signify her gracious
salvation through the objective signs and imitation of Yahweh by making a
distinction between clean and unclean food.
Returning
to Acts 10, it was demonstrated that the continuity of the principle of
separation is maintained by the Presence and indwelling of God the Holy Spirit,
who, as times of old, graciously elects a people from among the nations, thus
making them clean (Acts 10:15). The
sacramental rites of the kosher laws (just as circumcision and Sabbath) have
been superseded by baptism, which serves as the objective physical evidence of
the new covenant peoples’ separateness or distinction from all other peoples on
the face of the earth. These conclusions
are perfectly consistent with the historic confessions of Protestantism.
Therefore,
represented in Peter’s vision was God’s abolition of the OT food laws, as
objective physical signifiers of distinction; they were superseded by baptism,
which is universal in application for Jews and Gentiles alike, and have in back
of them both the immutable character of the One who makes clean with his
indwelling Presence.
OUTLINE
A Kosher Exegesis of
Acts 10:9—16:
Peter’s Sheet Vision in Biblical-Theological Perspective
I. Introduction
A.
Importance of the Cornelius episode in the theology of Acts
B. Thesis
II. Structural outline of the literary unit
A. The
narrative of the Peter’s vision and accompanying events (Ch. 10)
1.
The vision of Cornelius (10:1—8)
2.
The vision of Peter (10:9—23)
a.
Peter’s vision proper (vv 9—16)
b.
The arrival of Cornelius’ dispatch in Joppa (vv 17—23a)
3.
Peter in Caesarea (10:23b—33)
a.
The arrival of Peter in Caesarea (vv 23b—29)
b.
Recital of the Cornelius’ vision (vv 30—33)
4.
Peter preaches the Gospel (10:34—43)
5.
The Holy Spirit effects the Gospel (10:44—48)
B. Peter
defends his Gentile ministry in Jerusalem (Ch. 11)
1.
Peter faces charge at Jerusalem (11:1—3)
2.
Peter’s recounting of the episode (vv 4—15)
a. The recital of the
Peter’s vision (vv 4—12)
b.
The recital of Cornelius’ vision (vv 13—15)
3.
Peter interprets the episode (vv 16—17)
4.
The Jerusalem verdict (v 18)
III. Peter’s vision in its New Testament context
A. Two
significant observations on the context
1.
Cornelius’ prayer as sacrificial
2.
The sheet’s content and Peter’s reaction
B. The
immediate point of the vision
1. The point is
praxis: Jewish/Gentile socio-religious intercourse
2. The point is
doctrine: primarily about kosher law
IV. Candidates for Old Testament background
A. Ezekiel
4
B. The book
and theology of Jonah
C. Old
Testament kosher law (Lev 11; Deut 14)
V. Various theological interpretations of the kosher laws
A. Hygiene
B.
Religious/cultic associations
C. Symbolic
1.
Moral view
2.
Anthropological view
D. Summary
of the Various Views on Kosher Laws
VI. Word study of critical terms
A. Old
Testament
1.
palah
2.
badal
C. Summary
and theological conclusion of the OT word study
VI. Application of OT Theological conclusions on Acts 10
VII. Conclusion
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beale, G. K., D. A.
Carson, editors, Commentary on the New
Testaments Use of the Old Testaments. Grand
Rapids, MI: Barker Academic, 2007.
Bock, Darrell L.,
Acts in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein,
editors, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2009.
Bruce, F. F., The Book of the Acts in The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. F. F. Bruce, editor,
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976.
Durham, John I., Exodus in Word Biblical Commentary. David
A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, editors, Waco,
TX: Word Books, 1987.
Keener, Craig S.,
The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New
Testament. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 1993.
Kittel, Gerhard, The Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1964.
Laymon, Charles,
M., editor, The Interpreter’s One-Volume
Commentary on the Bible. Nashville
& New York: Abingdon Press, 1971.
Marshall, I.
Howard, Acts in The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leon Morris, editor,
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1980.
Martin, Ralph P.,
Peter H. Davids, editors, Dictionary of
the Later New Testament and Its Developments.
Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997.
Scott, Julius J.
Jr., “The Cornelius Incident in Light of Its Jewish Setting.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 34, no. 4 (December 1991): 475—484.
______________,
“The Church’s Progress to the Council of Jerusalem according to the Book of
Acts.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7
(1997): 205—224.
Sprinkle, Joe M.,
“Clean, Unclean.” Baker’s Evangelical
Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Walter A. Elwell, editor, Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 1996.
Retrieved from http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/clean-unclean.html
(Accessed November 20, 2010).
Vanhoozer, Kevin,
editor, The Dictionary for Theological
Interpretation of the Bible. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2005.
Wenham, Gordon
J., “The Theology of Unclean Food.” Evangelical
Quarterly 53, no. 1 (January/March 1981): 6—15.
APPENDIX
Kosher
Exegesis: A Redemptive-Historical Understanding of the Old Covenant Food
Laws.
Outline of
Scripture Terms, Texts, and Themes
I. Terms: Hebrew
A. Heb. palah: (variously
translated “distinction,” “to put a difference,” “distinguish,” “sever,” “set
apart,” “separation,” et cetera).
1. Used in reference to Yahweh making a palah between Israel (“My people”) and
Pharaoh and the Egyptians during Yahweh’s (“God of the Hebrews”) visitation and
presence “in the land;” in Yahweh making
the “distinction” between his people and “the nations.” (Ex 8:21—22; 9:4; 11:7,
and 33:16.)
2.
Used during the post-exilic period with the same sense, making a
“distinction” or “separation” between the Israelite remnant returning and “the
nations,” the “heathens,” or “strange wives.” (See: Ezr 6:21.)
B.
Heb. badal: (variously translated “to
divide,” “to separate,” “sever,” “distinguish,” “differ,” et cetera).
1. Of God’s work in the original creation
(Gen 1:4, 6, 7, 14, and 18).
2. In the book of Leviticus, regarding the
connection between Yahweh “separating” Israel from the nations and their
corresponding action of “separating” or “making a distinction” between clean
and unclean animals [i.e., the so-called kosher laws] (Lev 10:10; 11:44—47;
20:22—26).
3. Various uses of the term with respect
to further “sub-divisions” within the Tabernacle, priesthood, covenant
community, and the land:
a. Levi (Deut 10:8).
b. Priests set apart from the
congregation (Num 16:9; 1 Chr 23:13; Ezr 8:24).
c. Temple musicians (1 Chr 25:1).
d. The Holy Place from the Most Holy
Place (Ex 26:33).
e. Cities for a special purpose
(Deut 19:2, 7).
4. Used synonymously with palah during the post-exilic period (Ezr
9:1; 10:11; Neh 9:2; 10:28; cf. I:A:2
above).
5. See (1 Kings 8:53) for the term’s use
in a parallelism with “…brought you up out of Egypt,” thus giving it redemptive
connotations. (See also: Parallelism:
Lev 11:45c “Brought you up out of the land of Egypt...I am holy; you be holy”
// 20:26 “I, Yahweh, have separated you from the peoples...I am holy; you be
holy.”
6. Looking eschatologically toward the New
Covenant age, badal is abrogated for
the formerly ‘unclean’ persons: aliens, lepers and eunuchs (Is 56:3).
II.
Terms: Greek (NT and LXX)
A.
Gk. diakrinō (same general concepts
as above Hebrew terms, see I Terms).
1. In (Acts
10:20; 11:12), after the heavenly
vision of the sheet full of all manner of animals and God’s command to Peter to
“rise, kill, and eat,” Peter is further commanded to go with Cornelius’
dispatch “making no distinction,”
respecting the “uncircumcised” (11:3) Gentiles.
See also in this connection, the irony of 11:2, where those of the
Ebionite ilk are using diakrinō against
Peter in disputation (cf. 11:3).
2. On
“discerning” the Lord’s body (1 Cor 11:29).
3. The
concepts of “clean [and unclean] foods” and some [Jewish Christians] making the
“distinction” see (Rom 14:23).
B.
Gk. phragmos (a hedge or fence of
separation; that which separates, prevents two from coming together).
1. The
vineyard motif, having a phragmos
built around the vineyard, thus separating Israel, who is the Lord’s “vineyard”
from the nations (Mk 12:1f; Matt 21:33; cf.
OT background, Ps 80:8f and Is 5).
2. The
reconciliation of the two to each other, so making “one new man,” a tertium genus, and reconciling both to
God through the body and cross of Christ, which is the destruction of the
“dividing phragmos” that formerly
existed between the Jew and the Gentile (Eph 4:14; see also Robertson’s Word
Pictures per E-sword).
C.
Gk. aphorizō (divide, separate,
sever, to set apart by boundary, to limit, exclude, appoint; see also Kittel’s TDNT, V:454-5—note the prolific use of
the term in Leviticus and elsewhere in the LXX).
1. In the
excommunicative sense, social anathema, creating boundaries of the “innies and
outies” of social/religious intercourse (Lk 6:22 on the part of unbelievers,
ironically).
2. For Paul “separating the disciples” from the
“hardened” Jews of the synagogue in Ephesus (Acts 19:9). In this connections—Acts 19:9—the term sklēros (“hardened”) and its cognate
forms elsewhere are interesting…always in reference to obstinate Israelites:
·
sklērunō, “hardened,”
here in Acts 19:9; cf. Rom 9:4, 18;
Heb 3:8, 13, 15; 4:7—8 (cit. of Ps 95:8).
·
sklērotrēlos,
“stiff-necked,” only in Acts 7:51.
·
sklērotēs, “hard…heart,”
Rom 2:5.
·
Sklērokardia,
“hard-hearted,” Matt 19:8 // Mk 10:15.
3. Of special
interest is Paul’s designation of Peter’s submission to the Judaizing
influences of those who “came from James” to Antioch (Gal 2:12).
4. In
relation to the Holy Spirit’s work of “setting apart” for service, as with Paul
and Barnabas for the mission to the Gentiles (Acts 13:2).
5. For
allusive correspondence to the Levitical priesthood see the inclusio of Rom 1:1 and 15:16.
6. In 2 Cor 6:16
the term is used in the context of the New Covenant Temple, the Church,
citing/alluding to a catena of Old Testament passages: Lev 26:12; 2 Sam 7:8, 14; Is 52:11; Eze 20:34; 37:27; cf. Rev 18:4.
7. Finally,
see Matt 13:49 and 25:32 for the ultimate “separation” of the elect from the
reprobate world.
[1]
For another, more extensive account of this story, see 4 Maccabees, chs. 8 –
17.
[2]
Prescribed primarily in Lev 11 and Deut 14.
[3]
If Bock’s analysis and subsequent translation of this term (thyson) as “sacrifice,” following
Barrett, is correct, and reflects Luke’s, Peter’s, and the original audience’s
understanding, it would have heightened the repugnance of the command all the
more. “Barrett argues that the term
‘sacrifice’ almost makes the action a religious act.” See Darrell L. Bock, Acts in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein,
editors (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2009), 389. Contrary to Bock’s
“sacrifice” translation is I. Howard Marhsall’s contention that the term is
better translated “slaughter,” based on its use in Deut 12:15. See, “Acts,” pp. 513—606, in Commentary on the New Testaments Use of the
Old Testaments. Beale, G. K., D. A.
Carson, editors (Grand Rapids, MI: Barker Academic, 2007), 577.
[4]
Julius J. Scott, Jr., “The Cornelius Incident in Light of Its Jewish Setting.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 34, no. 4 (December 1991): 484.
Op. cit.
[5]
F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts in The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. F. F. Bruce, editor (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 223, fn. 29.
[6]
Bock, Acts, 387.
[7]
The Book of Acts, 216.
[8]
Ibid. fn. 7.
[9]
Bock, Acts, 387.
[10]
As cited in Bock, ibid.
[11]
I. Howard Marshall, Acts in The Tyndale New
Testament Commentaries. Leon Morris, editor (Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 1980), 185.
[12]
Ibid.
Emphasis original.
[14]
“The vision, whether a parable or a command about food, shows the arrival of a
new era and is not just about diet (Acts 10:28—29). Midrash Psalms 146.4 (268) says that in the
future (i.e., in the days of the Messiah) God will declare clean all the animals
that in this world are declared unclean (Str-B 2:702; Barrett 1994: 509). Barrett rejects the view that the vision
suggests a change into a new era; instead he thinks that this lack of
distinction was always in the mind of God.
A lack of distinction seems unlikely, however, given the food
distinctions in the Torah.” Bock, Acts, 389—90. All parentheses original.
[15]
Scott, “The Cornelius Incident,” 479. Op. cit.
[16]
As included in Bock, Acts, 390. Op.
cit.
[17]
Ibid.
[18]
William Baird, The Acts of the Apostles, pp.
729—67, in The Interpreter’s One-Volume
Commentary on the Bible. Charles M.
Laymon editor (Nashville & New York: Abingdon Press, 1971), 742.
[19]
The Book of Acts, 218.
[20]
J. Julius Scott, Jr., “The Church’s Progress to the Council of Jerusalem
according to the Book of Acts.” Bulletin
for Biblical Research 7 (1997): 213.
[21]
Acts, 186. “A separation from uncleanness is always
simultaneous separation from unclean persons” (Schürer, II, p. 396).” Ibid. fn. 1.
[22]
So Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background
Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1993), 351.
[23]
Ibid. Cf. Eze 21:5 LXX. Brackets added.
[24]
Marshall, “Acts” in COTUNT, 577.
[25]
The substance of this section of the thesis is greatly indebted to Wenham’s
work in “The Theology of Unclean Food.” Evangelical
Quarterly 53, no. 1 (January/March 1981): 6—15.
[26]
Ibid. 6.
[27]
Ibid.
[28]
As cited by Wenham, ibid.
[29]
Ibid, 6—7.
[30]
Joe M. Sprinkle, “Clean, Unclean.” Baker’s
Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Walter A. Elwell, editor (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996). Retrieved
from http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/clean-unclean.html
(Accessed November 20, 2010). No page
numbers.
[31]
Ibid.
[32]
Wenham, “The Theology of Unclean Food,” 7.
[33]
“Clean, unclean,” no page number.
[34]
Ibid.
Op cit.
[35]
Ibid, 8.
[36]
Wenham, “The Theology of Unclean Food,” 9.
[37]
Ibid.
[38]
Ibid, 9—10.
[39]
“Deciphering a Meal,” Daedalus 101
(1972): 61—81.
[40]
Wenham, “The Theology of Unclean Food,” 10.
On page 11, Wenham provides a convincing list of such parallels.
[41]
Ibid.
Op cit.
[42]
See appendix for a full outline of the critical terms, both in the OT and NT,
regarding the concept of “separation;” and that the terms listed above are used
interchangeably in the OT, see especially their use in Ezra/Nehemiah and 1 Kgs
8:53.
[43]
Note the emphasis that is laid upon Yahweh’s Presence in this verse, as that
which makes Israel distinct from the nations.
A. How shall it be known (to
every other people on the face of the earth)
B. I and your
people
C. your going with us
C. so that we are “distinct”
B.
I and your people
A. from every other people on the face
of the earth.
[44]
John I. Durham, Exodus in Word Biblical Commentary. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker,
editors (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987),
447.
[45]
“Clean, unclean,” no page numbers.
[46]
It could be wondered how tongues could serve as a sign of judgment analogical
to the plagues in Egypt. Toward an
answer, one could appeal to 1 Cor 14:21—25 as a starting point.
[47]
Note the correspondence between this conclusion and Acts 15:13—17, James’
conclusion regarding Gentile inclusion, based on Amos 9:11—12.
No comments:
Post a Comment