In Acts 10, verse 9 the attention turns to Peter. Peter is on the roof praying when the Lord sends him a vision. In the vision he sees a large sheet coming down. In the sheet were all kinds of animals, reptiles, and birds. Then a voice tells Peter to get up, kill, and eat. Peter responds that he will not because he has never eaten anything common or unclean (10:14). Now it is important to understand why Peter is saying no. God had given a law to his people that there were only certain animals they were allowed to eat. Those that they were allowed to eat were called clean and those they were not allowed to eat were called unclean. Look at what God declared under the Law of Moses. Therefore you are to distinguish the clean animal from the unclean one, and the unclean bird from the clean one. Do not become contaminated by any land animal, bird, or whatever crawls on the ground; I have set these apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be mine. (Leviticus 20:25-26 CSB) What we see is Peter doing what this command says to do. He is not going to defile himself but wants to remain holy to the Lord. One way the people of Israel showed this was by eating differently. But listen to how God responds to Peter in verse 15. “What God has made clean, do not call impure.” Those animals were not to be considered unclean any longer. This happens to Peter three times to emphasize this point. But I want you to notice verse 17. Peter is perplexed by what the vision means. What I want us to see is that it is clear to Peter that the point is not about how the dietary laws of the Law of Moses have been erased. The vision is not about animals at all and Peter is trying to understand what this vision does mean.
Thank you for your video. Pete vision on Acts ch.10 was about the Lord welcoming the gentiles into the family of God ,but more specifically about Peters soon viisit to Cornelius and his guests whose messengers were approaching Peters' house as the vision unfolded. There is what is known in biblical studies as The Law of Repetition. Based on this Law, the Law will repeat an event three times to set a precedent and to reveal an important spiritual truth. Threr times the sheet was let down before Peter filled with the unclean animals. Peter was then told by the Lord to kill and eat. Upon Peters' reply that he had never eaten anything unclean, the Lord replied," What God hath cleaned call not thou uncommon or unclean. In the original Greek the word for " hath cleansed" is indicative meaning that it presently is not something that will be in the future. The reason that the gentiles recieved the Holy Spirit before water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is because through the remission of sins the temples of their bodies had already been cleansed of them, years before Peters' visit having been baptized by John in the Jordan river years before. John baptized a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Once the Lord shed his blood at Calvary those that had been baptized by John had their sins remitted right then. My scriptural proof of this is: 1) Only the cleansing of the blood of Christ could have cleansed the temples of the gentiles' bodies sufficiently for the Holy Spirit to take up permanent residence within them. 2)The fact that they spoke in tongues proves that they had been baptized in the Spirit, which is being born of the Spirit. 3) The Holy Spirit will not take up permanent residence within an unclean temple. Under the old covenant, as the writer of Hebrews wrote, the blood of bulls and goats was insufficient when it came to removing consciousness of sins which is guilt. Only the shed blood of Christ can accomplsh this so that the Holy Spirit could take up permanent residence in the body of the believer. 5) The reason that Peter ordered the gentiles to be rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ is so that the spoken name if Jesus Christ would be spoken over them so that they could take on the " bridegrooms" name, much the same as when a bride. In the natural has the bridegrooms' name called over her during the wedding ceremony with the result of his name now becoming hers too. Lastly, on Peters' return to Jerusalem after hiz vidit with the gentiles it was the other apostles that confronted him not the pharisees.( Acts 11:1,15).
I would like to ask your permission to upload your videos onto my channel....I will give full credit and link to your channel. Many thanks for your consideration.
Thanks for asking. I would prefer to just keep the videos on my channel. You are obviously welcome to share links to the videos with anyone who might be interested or curious.
Is there technology in Glory we do not have and do not understand yet? A great sheet lowered with living animals seen in it. I am NOT a skeptic, but the sheet reminds me of a motion-picture screen. They have that technology in Heaven? That screen Peter looked at displayed, moving, technicolor images, in three-dimensions (without special viewing glasses; technology we don't have yet on this sin-cursed world) of all sorts of animals that looked so real that one could almost reach out and touch one of those realist images, thus God commanding him, "Get up, Peter, slay and eat!" Peter must have thought he was looking at real animals somehow imbedded in a flat screen.
If Peter ate with the gentles . Then ask yourself what were the gentiles eating ?? You can't ask the gentiles to be circumcised. But then tou want to tell them ehyat to eat.
Shalom, my Torah keeping brother! I would respectfully contend that you have made a very common error that's prevalent in the Torah community. Simply stated, Peter never received any "contradictory instructions" from the Most High. Please consider watching our video entitled: _Video 8: Peter's Vision - What Torah Keepers get WRONG!_
This interpretation is contrary to the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the rest of the Bible. So if the suggestion is that scripture explains itself, the rest of New Testament requires an interpretation contrary to this video.
While we have different opinions of the full interpretation my half would be God is showing that both food and coming to another nation was no longer unclean. There is no later reference of “kill and eat” and to pretend that that is simply absent doesn’t make sense nor does it make it “perfectly clear” this was only about people. Even prior to the vision it explicitly notes Peter went with hunger. You absolutely have the right to your own opinion and those that share it, I just don’t understand how those words and easily be ignored when it’s hunger addressing hunger and then you assume for it to only be about people when the larger picture for those of us that disagree is the relationship with all food and people had now changed. This being important because gatherings and food were a primary way of interaction in those days.
Thanks for your comment! You are correct that Peter had the vision after the text mentions he was hungry and while he was waiting on a meal to be prepared. However, Acts 10:17 offers what I believe is a critically important detail: "Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant..." So Peter himself didn't immediately understand the vision to be regarding food. In fact, Peter doesn't gain insight about the vision until two days later as they arrive at Cornelius's home. It is there we find his interpretation in Acts 10:28, " But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean." There is never a verse that specifically mentions a change to the dietary laws, outside of inferring that is the meaning of "Kill and Eat." Furthermore, when we read Peter's account of these events in Acts 11, he never shares with the Pharisees anything regarding a change in the dietary laws. And if he had, they would have likely wanted to stone him then and there. But instead they declare in Acts 11:18, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." Another fundamental point that we must remember is that the Bible is written by Hebrews, for Hebrews, and about Hebrews. And from a Hebraic perspective, unclean animals were not considered food. That would be equivalent to a priest in America advocating that we can now eat dogs, or lampshades, or bubble wrap. I'm not trying to be sarcastic by saying that, but rather illustrate the point that there is never a situation in which a Hebrew would EVER consider an unclean animal to be food. And you're right about gatherings and food being an important form of interaction in those days....and even now. And that only further confirms my point. Devout Hebrews would not have ever been willing to even imagine eating something unclean. That's why Peter is still observing the dietary laws ten years after Yeshua ascended. We must remember that our Heavenly Father does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Thus, he would not suddenly change his mind and allow something that He already identified as an abomination. We really need to look no further than Psalm 119:160, "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." That means the food laws are still in place. I don't know if you've seen it, but perhaps you might find my video "The Biblical Diet" of some help in further clarifying this issue. ruclips.net/video/md0mbzhokrE/видео.html
Turning to Torah thank you for the reply! While I do understand where you’re coming from there are some things I’m still not in agreement with. Not Acts, let alone the entire bible do I think is written to the Hebrews. It might have been written in Hebrew but I’m not a Hebrew nor are most of us but it was still written to us all in the reasonable sense. With some of the same quotes from the passage and even specifically “God showed me I should not call any man unholy or unclean” speaking of the gentiles; the gentiles ate all kinds of things and certainly sacrificed to idols. Now I am of the belief these laws were specifically to set the Jewish people apart as everyone was doing all kinds of things around them. When Jesus was present he reconciled all unto him, Jew and gentile. For me that paints the broader picture and even including Acts 10:28 that you cannot call any man unholy or unclean. This included gentiles that ate all kinds of things even if it was bubble wrap (kidding). As Jesus was present he was the new standard and while I’m not saying Matthew 15:17 is necessary saying eat anything you want, it’s Jesus making the point that it doesn’t matter what you do, it’s your heart that matters. In the same sense you could eat pork every other day but, once you’re saved even if for instance you and I never change our opinion, nothing is separating either of us from God. God not changing and and having a plan where circumstances change are not the same thing. I would think it would be more clear when you consider were not stoning anyone anymore, or lusting after a woman does actually mean committing adultery, sacrifices do not need to be made for the remission of sins, a global flood. I don’t know how those things can be ignored when it obviously has changed. And saying, “well that’s not the case” is ignoring the point. As I mentioned once before, Jesus was present and was not physically prior. Jews (or Israelites?) no longer need to separate themselves because they had been established by that time. Everything had been put in place for the arrival of the perfect sacrifice (Jesus). Now the Orthodox Jews don’t believe that. And while they are not eating pork, observing the “proper” sabbath day, maintaining the feasts, they are all heading straight for hell until the truth is revealed and “the entire house of Israel is saved” in end of the last days that we are heading into. I’m sorry that I went on but it’s reiterating the same essential things. God has a plan with multiple parts. Circumstances and situations change, God doesn’t. Since time as we know it exists there are before and afters. Things were different before The fall, after the fall, before and after the flood, before/after Jesus, and same with the rapture (even if we completely disagree there). There’s several instances of things changing yet it’s the same God. Unfortunately no matter what rebuttal there might be, where I am in my walk I still see it as labeling the same situation differently and elevating it to where the point is ultimately missed. Completely aside from discussion I just want to say I appreciate getting to talk about it with you. It’s not a salvation issue but it’s certainly something worth bringing up on whichever side one stands. The important thing is that Gods people want to make sure they’re taking the opportunity to honor him and these discussions are just us trying to figure it out. In the same sense we’re called to not judge how one observes the sabbath or one eats , I wouldn’t judge you or anyone else on how they address these things in their own life. You’re still a brother in Christ!
my thoughts as well... there is no passage saying "it's ok to go into gentiles homes, preach to them, pray with them, lead them in prayer, fulfilling the great commission, but... be sure to always ask for a kosher meal when it's time to eat..." missing the point
Just a couple of thoughts to consider. It may well be that Kepha was completing a fast eg Daniel et al. A supporting witness is the Acts 15 Kosher reference to food that has not been strangled.
Acts 10v11 ReWrit :" And when Peter fell into a trance he saw a sheet like a flying carpet bearing potatoes in the form of chips & crisps, baked and boiled, also tomatoes, maize, strawberries, cocoa powder, vanilla, avocado, squash - pumpkin, cooked turkey meat. Peter asked, "What are these strange foods, i have never eaten the like ?" God said unto Peter, "These are some of the best foods that i have flown in from the continent of America , that lies over the pond, Take eat, enjoy !" And having sampled from the flying table cloth Peter exclaimed, "Wow, these are really tasty. Praise the Lord for he is good"
Nice rewrite, hope it's not considered adding to scripture, but you stated clearly it was a re write. Very controversial subject, probably be a hot topic soon. The vegetables sure sound good.
Excellent!! You have such a beautiful way of presenting truth.
Take On The World TV Praise, Yah! That’s extremely kind of you to say, thank you
Another wonderful production and great tool for us all as we need it. Thank you!
Thanks so much for the encouragement! I hope the video is something you can use to share and discuss with others!
This was so well done. Thank you for speaking truth!
Thank you for these videos brother
In Acts 10, verse 9 the attention turns to Peter. Peter is on the roof praying when the Lord sends him a vision. In the vision he sees a large sheet coming down. In the sheet were all kinds of animals, reptiles, and birds. Then a voice tells Peter to get up, kill, and eat. Peter responds that he will not because he has never eaten anything common or unclean (10:14). Now it is important to understand why Peter is saying no. God had given a law to his people that there were only certain animals they were allowed to eat. Those that they were allowed to eat were called clean and those they were not allowed to eat were called unclean. Look at what God declared under the Law of Moses.
Therefore you are to distinguish the clean animal from the unclean one, and the unclean bird from the clean one. Do not become contaminated by any land animal, bird, or whatever crawls on the ground; I have set these apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be mine. (Leviticus 20:25-26 CSB)
What we see is Peter doing what this command says to do. He is not going to defile himself but wants to remain holy to the Lord. One way the people of Israel showed this was by eating differently. But listen to how God responds to Peter in verse 15. “What God has made clean, do not call impure.” Those animals were not to be considered unclean any longer. This happens to Peter three times to emphasize this point. But I want you to notice verse 17. Peter is perplexed by what the vision means. What I want us to see is that it is clear to Peter that the point is not about how the dietary laws of the Law of Moses have been erased. The vision is not about animals at all and Peter is trying to understand what this vision does mean.
Then why say kill and eat?
Thank you for your video.
Pete vision on Acts ch.10 was about the Lord welcoming the gentiles into the family of God ,but more specifically about Peters soon viisit to Cornelius and his guests whose messengers were approaching Peters' house as the vision unfolded.
There is what is known in biblical studies as The Law of Repetition. Based on this Law, the Law will repeat an event three times to set a precedent and to reveal an important spiritual truth.
Threr times the sheet was let down before Peter filled with the unclean animals. Peter was then told by the Lord to kill and eat. Upon Peters' reply that he had never eaten anything unclean, the Lord replied," What God hath cleaned call not thou uncommon or unclean.
In the original Greek the word for " hath cleansed" is indicative meaning that it presently is not something that will be in the future.
The reason that the gentiles recieved the Holy Spirit before water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is because through the remission of sins the temples of their bodies had already been cleansed of them, years before Peters' visit having been baptized by John in the Jordan river years before.
John baptized a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Once the Lord shed his blood at Calvary those that had been baptized by John had their sins remitted right then.
My scriptural proof of this is: 1) Only the cleansing of the blood of Christ could have cleansed the temples of the gentiles' bodies sufficiently for the Holy Spirit to take up permanent residence within them.
2)The fact that they spoke in tongues proves that they had been baptized in the Spirit, which is being born of the Spirit.
3) The Holy Spirit will not take up permanent residence within an unclean temple. Under the old covenant, as the writer of Hebrews wrote, the blood of bulls and goats was insufficient when it came to removing consciousness of sins which is guilt.
Only the shed blood of Christ can accomplsh this so that the Holy Spirit could take up permanent residence in the body of the believer.
5) The reason that Peter ordered the gentiles to be rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ is so that the spoken name if Jesus Christ would be spoken over them so that they could take on the " bridegrooms" name, much the same as when a bride. In the natural has the bridegrooms' name called over her during the wedding ceremony with the result of his name now becoming hers too.
Lastly, on Peters' return to Jerusalem after hiz vidit with the gentiles it was the other apostles that confronted him not the pharisees.( Acts 11:1,15).
Thank you.
Thank you, well done! Shared.
Alien Sojourner Thanks so much! I really appreciate you sharing!
I would like to ask your permission to upload your videos onto my channel....I will give full credit and link to your channel.
Many thanks for your consideration.
Thanks for asking. I would prefer to just keep the videos on my channel. You are obviously welcome to share links to the videos with anyone who might be interested or curious.
@@TurningtoTorah
Ok.
thanks for getting back so quickly.
Is there technology in Glory we do not have and do not understand yet? A great sheet lowered with living animals seen in it. I am NOT a skeptic, but the sheet reminds me of a motion-picture screen. They have that technology in Heaven? That screen Peter looked at displayed, moving, technicolor images, in three-dimensions (without special viewing glasses; technology we don't have yet on this sin-cursed world) of all sorts of animals that looked so real that one could almost reach out and touch one of those realist images, thus God commanding him, "Get up, Peter, slay and eat!" Peter must have thought he was looking at real animals somehow imbedded in a flat screen.
If Peter ate with the gentles .
Then ask yourself what were the gentiles eating ??
You can't ask the gentiles to be circumcised.
But then tou want to tell them ehyat to eat.
Shalom, my Torah keeping brother! I would respectfully contend that you have made a very common error that's prevalent in the Torah community. Simply stated, Peter never received any "contradictory instructions" from the Most High. Please consider watching our video entitled: _Video 8: Peter's Vision - What Torah Keepers get WRONG!_
This interpretation is contrary to the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the rest of the Bible. So if the suggestion is that scripture explains itself, the rest of New Testament requires an interpretation contrary to this video.
While we have different opinions of the full interpretation my half would be God is showing that both food and coming to another nation was no longer unclean. There is no later reference of “kill and eat” and to pretend that that is simply absent doesn’t make sense nor does it make it “perfectly clear” this was only about people. Even prior to the vision it explicitly notes Peter went with hunger. You absolutely have the right to your own opinion and those that share it, I just don’t understand how those words and easily be ignored when it’s hunger addressing hunger and then you assume for it to only be about people when the larger picture for those of us that disagree is the relationship with all food and people had now changed. This being important because gatherings and food were a primary way of interaction in those days.
Thanks for your comment! You are correct that Peter had the vision after the text mentions he was hungry and while he was waiting on a meal to be prepared. However, Acts 10:17 offers what I believe is a critically important detail: "Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant..." So Peter himself didn't immediately understand the vision to be regarding food. In fact, Peter doesn't gain insight about the vision until two days later as they arrive at Cornelius's home. It is there we find his interpretation in Acts 10:28, " But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
There is never a verse that specifically mentions a change to the dietary laws, outside of inferring that is the meaning of "Kill and Eat." Furthermore, when we read Peter's account of these events in Acts 11, he never shares with the Pharisees anything regarding a change in the dietary laws. And if he had, they would have likely wanted to stone him then and there. But instead they declare in Acts 11:18, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."
Another fundamental point that we must remember is that the Bible is written by Hebrews, for Hebrews, and about Hebrews. And from a Hebraic perspective, unclean animals were not considered food. That would be equivalent to a priest in America advocating that we can now eat dogs, or lampshades, or bubble wrap. I'm not trying to be sarcastic by saying that, but rather illustrate the point that there is never a situation in which a Hebrew would EVER consider an unclean animal to be food. And you're right about gatherings and food being an important form of interaction in those days....and even now. And that only further confirms my point. Devout Hebrews would not have ever been willing to even imagine eating something unclean. That's why Peter is still observing the dietary laws ten years after Yeshua ascended.
We must remember that our Heavenly Father does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Thus, he would not suddenly change his mind and allow something that He already identified as an abomination. We really need to look no further than Psalm 119:160, "The sum of your word is truth,
and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." That means the food laws are still in place.
I don't know if you've seen it, but perhaps you might find my video "The Biblical Diet" of some help in further clarifying this issue.
ruclips.net/video/md0mbzhokrE/видео.html
Turning to Torah thank you for the reply! While I do understand where you’re coming from there are some things I’m still not in agreement with. Not Acts, let alone the entire bible do I think is written to the Hebrews. It might have been written in Hebrew but I’m not a Hebrew nor are most of us but it was still written to us all in the reasonable sense. With some of the same quotes from the passage and even specifically “God showed me I should not call any man unholy or unclean” speaking of the gentiles; the gentiles ate all kinds of things and certainly sacrificed to idols. Now I am of the belief these laws were specifically to set the Jewish people apart as everyone was doing all kinds of things around them. When Jesus was present he reconciled all unto him, Jew and gentile. For me that paints the broader picture and even including Acts 10:28 that you cannot call any man unholy or unclean. This included gentiles that ate all kinds of things even if it was bubble wrap (kidding). As Jesus was present he was the new standard and while I’m not saying Matthew 15:17 is necessary saying eat anything you want, it’s Jesus making the point that it doesn’t matter what you do, it’s your heart that matters. In the same sense you could eat pork every other day but, once you’re saved even if for instance you and I never change our opinion, nothing is separating either of us from God. God not changing and and having a plan where circumstances change are not the same thing. I would think it would be more clear when you consider were not stoning anyone anymore, or lusting after a woman does actually mean committing adultery, sacrifices do not need to be made for the remission of sins, a global flood. I don’t know how those things can be ignored when it obviously has changed. And saying, “well that’s not the case” is ignoring the point. As I mentioned once before, Jesus was present and was not physically prior. Jews (or Israelites?) no longer need to separate themselves because they had been established by that time. Everything had been put in place for the arrival of the perfect sacrifice (Jesus). Now the Orthodox Jews don’t believe that. And while they are not eating pork, observing the “proper” sabbath day, maintaining the feasts, they are all heading straight for hell until the truth is revealed and “the entire house of Israel is saved” in end of the last days that we are heading into. I’m sorry that I went on but it’s reiterating the same essential things. God has a plan with multiple parts. Circumstances and situations change, God doesn’t. Since time as we know it exists there are before and afters. Things were different before The fall, after the fall, before and after the flood, before/after Jesus, and same with the rapture (even if we completely disagree there). There’s several instances of things changing yet it’s the same God. Unfortunately no matter what rebuttal there might be, where I am in my walk I still see it as labeling the same situation differently and elevating it to where the point is ultimately missed.
Completely aside from discussion I just want to say I appreciate getting to talk about it with you. It’s not a salvation issue but it’s certainly something worth bringing up on whichever side one stands. The important thing is that Gods people want to make sure they’re taking the opportunity to honor him and these discussions are just us trying to figure it out. In the same sense we’re called to not judge how one observes the sabbath or one eats , I wouldn’t judge you or anyone else on how they address these things in their own life. You’re still a brother in Christ!
my thoughts as well... there is no passage saying "it's ok to go into gentiles homes, preach to them, pray with them, lead them in prayer, fulfilling the great commission, but... be sure to always ask for a kosher meal when it's time to eat..." missing the point
Just a couple of thoughts to consider. It may well be that Kepha was completing a fast eg Daniel et al. A supporting witness is the Acts 15 Kosher reference to food that has not been strangled.
@@TurningtoTorah then what is the meaning of the ‘kill and eat’ part in your interpretation. Cause that kind of gets skipped over
Acts 10v11 ReWrit :" And when Peter fell into a trance he saw a sheet like a flying carpet bearing potatoes in the form of chips & crisps, baked and boiled, also tomatoes, maize, strawberries, cocoa powder, vanilla, avocado, squash - pumpkin, cooked turkey meat. Peter asked, "What are these strange foods, i have never eaten the like ?" God said unto Peter, "These are some of the best foods that i have flown in from the continent of America , that lies over the pond, Take eat, enjoy !" And having sampled from the flying table cloth Peter exclaimed, "Wow, these are really tasty. Praise the Lord for he is good"
Nice rewrite, hope it's not considered adding to scripture, but you stated clearly it was a re write. Very controversial subject, probably be a hot topic soon. The vegetables sure sound good.