Clean

Whenever I am confronted with a troublesome Bible passage, I reach for commentaries in an effort to broaden my perspective. There are very few passages I’ve not heard preached in different denominational settings with different understandings which, in accordance with my feeble mind, only add to my confusion. It can also be unsettling that we can never be quite sure that we have it exactly right. Reaching for that lofty ideal can sometimes make matters worse because then we’re stuck with persons each of whom insists that he or she is “right” and everyone else is wrong, causing division among believers who should be united in mission, purpose, and faith.

It’s not a bad thing to be open enough to listen to a perspective or opinion that may differ from our own in an effort to gain a broader insight into what such passages may have meant when they were first written, but many among us are not historians and have no real interest in antiquity beyond how it is relevant to us in our contemporary culture. We can see what was written 2000 years ago but because of the near-constant conflicts among the Church’s various denominations, we are left with more confusion than certainty about the direction in which we are called to move.

The differences are even more profound when we get into an apparent conflict between what is written in the Hebrew scriptures and what is written in the New Testament scriptures such as what Peter seems to have encountered in Joppa (Acts 11:1-18). The Torah is, in my opinion, very clear about what are regarded as unclean animals and thus prohibited from the Jewish dinner table. Yet Peter had a vision that seems to suggest to him that the law which renders certain animals unclean and thus not fit for consumption is no longer applicable, that if anything – even an unclean animal – is blessed by the Lord, it must no longer be considered unclean.

By the same token, the Jews were historically prohibited from intermingling with Gentiles out of concern that they could be easily influenced to reject the Lord and His laws and assimilate themselves into the pagan culture. The Lord called the Jews forth for a reason; they were to be set apart from the rest of the world for HIS glory and not for their favor. And this is part of the reason why the people were concerned that Peter would be dealing with “uncircumcised” people – the Gentiles. These were not people of God; they were UNCLEAN; they were not of the covenant which had been established with Abraham. And according to custom and law, the only way these unclean persons could be allowed into the culture is by circumcision.

Something has happened since the time of Abraham. Remember that circumcision is the sign of the covenant that the Lord made with Abraham. It is the mark of faith and distinguishes the people of Abraham from all the others, and the covenant is – as written – for all time (Genesis 17:9-13) which would mean that there is no ending. There is no reference to a cut-off (no pun intended) date. In fact, I am not aware of any written reference to a “shelf life” for any biblical covenant. We have to remember that it is the Lord Himself who initiated ALL covenants, and the Lord is nothing if not faithful and consistent, never-changing: “I am the Lord; I do not change.”(Malachi 3:6a) Yet Paul, “as to the law, a Pharisee” (Philippians 3:5), argues extensively to the Galatians that circumcision is meaningless and has nothing to do with the condition of one’s heart.

The Law as handed down to Moses prohibits the consumption of certain animals, a prohibition that did not seem to exist during the time of Adam even though unclean animals were part of the lot of animals ordered onto the Ark of Noah (Genesis 7:2b). Exactly why certain animals were deemed to be unclean beyond the lack of cud-chewing is not clear, and it is all the more unclear as we consider that the animals were put on this earth for the benefit of man. Why the Lord created unclean animals to begin with is a mystery we may never figure out though I would suspect that it has everything to do with the ecological circle of life.

Still, Peter was a faithful and devout Jew. It seems clear that he would not dream of knowingly violating the Law and may have even felt like he was being tested … AGAIN! And while it may seem that the entire issue is about clean and unclean meat for human consumption (some actually believe that it was at this moment when pork, for instance, was suddenly “approved”), I think the message that Peter was getting is much more profound that kosher law.

The real issue for Peter – and for us - is not food but humanity as it must necessarily be for all believers. Up to this point, we are still reading of Jews who likely considered themselves to be FAVORED of the Lord rather than CHOSEN for a purpose. The same might even be said of unclean animals such as pork which we seem to have no problem eating. Perhaps it is that swine has been created for a particular reason but not necessarily for human consumption. So then the same must be said for Gentiles, those non-Jewish persons who were still created in the Divine Image; not FAVORED necessarily but certainly CHOSEN for a reason. Jesus said, “You did not choose Me; I chose you.”

Who are we, then, as Peter asks of himself, that we would question the Lord’s blessing upon someone with whom we have theological and doctrinal differences? Who are we to question someone whom we might consider to be unfit in the eyes of the Lord when we cannot possibly know the purpose the Lord had in mind when that person was created IN THE DIVINE IMAGE just as we were?

Peter was at peace with himself after coming to such a realization just as we will be when we finally and fully understand that we are indeed a blessed and redeemed people – as are all others whether we believe it or not.