RESOURCING THE CHURCH FOR ECUMENICAL MINISTRy A ...

Balch explains that allophyle is the Greek translation
of Philistine, one who is characterized by LXX as
worshiping idols, uncircumcised, and frequently at
odds with the people of Judea. Balch declares, “he is
baptizing Goliath into the church!” This was an
extraordinary thing for a Jewish believer in the one
crucified under a centurion’s supervision (Luke
23:47) to accept, much less accomplish.
Peter was prepared for his own conversion by the
vision he received in Acts 10:9-16. Peter was
hungry, fell into a trance and watched as a sheet was
lowered with all manner of “unclean” animals. Peter
refused to partake of the unclean animals saying,
“By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything
that is profane or unclean” (Acts 10:14). The
response to him was that what God has made clean,
you must not call unclean.
Readers run two great risks in interpreting this
purely in terms of the legal requirement of kosher
food. The first risk is the risk of anti-Semitism.
Christians frequently dismiss “those ritualistic
Jews” who maintain kosher diets. The reasons for
and significance of a kosher diet is someone else’s
holy ground particularly in light of the persecutions
narrated in 2 Maccabees 6-7. The martyrdom of
Eleazor involves meat regarded by Jews as unclean.
Antiochus, the Selucid ruler orders everyone to eat
meat sacrificed to idols and to torture and kill those
who refuse. Among those refusing to eat the meat is
a respected elder, Eleazor. Eleazor gives a speech
stressing the religious significance of refraining to
eat such meat. Antiochus transgressed boundaries; he
did not cross them. And in so-doing he tormented
rather than shared. Refraining from so-called
unclean meat became a powerful sign of identity for
some faithful descendants of Abraham and remains
one to this day. Dismissiveness transgresses
boundaries; it does not cross them.
The second great risk in reading the text in terms of
food is isolating its application on a too literal plain.
The message points Peter to a mission to the
Gentiles. The words katharizo (cleanse) and koinou
(impure, unclean, common or profane) in 10:15 in
reference to animals emerge again at 10:28 in
reference Cornelius’ household. Upon entering
their house, Peter said to them, “You are well aware
that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a
Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I
should not call any person impure or unclean.”
Peter’s culinary dream in 10:9-16 foreshadows the
ecclesiastical reality in chapter 11 as the church
Mangum • Boundary Crossing, Conversion and Resurrection
44
accepts the capacity of non-Jewish people to (1)
receive the message of Christ; (2) receive the Spirit
of Christ; and (3) be baptized.
Through this movement, the church accepts a
reality that changes both its character and
understanding of God. Beverly Gaventa writes, “By
means of the issue of hospitality, Luke demonstrates
that the conversion of the first Gentile required the
conversion of the church as well. Indeed, in Luke’s
account, Peter and company undergo a change that
is more wrenching by far than the change
experienced by Cornelius.” The church had to
convert to this paradigm for itself—Do not regard as
unclean any person God has made, any person God
has loved, any person God has forgiven.
When Peter is confronted by those in Judea for his
actions, he offers a speech giving his account. The
evidence that Peter’s actions were right is lodged
within the presence of the Holy Spirit as seen in the
ecstatic tongues. He concludes his speech, “So if
God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who
believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think
that I could oppose God!” (11:17). To which the
people respond, “So then God has even granted the
Gentile repentance unto life” (11:18).
And so Peter’s speech signals his own conversion
toward accepting Gentiles, and indeed the church’s
conversion, on this point by saying, “Now I
understand.” Sometimes we read such statements
through the lens of contemporary shtick. “Now I
understand . . . ” Sometimes contemporary
preachers treat Peter and Paul like the Laurel and
Hardy of the New Testament. They satirize one as
slow witted and the other as quick tempered. How
many sermons have we heard—and perhaps even
preached—when the preacher reached this point in
the story, rolled his or her eyes and said, “Oh, now
you get it Peter. Took you long enough.” Preachers
often fail to acknowledge the tremendous change
that was underway within the world. Peter and the
early church were the first to witness the
momentous shift in human history. They were the
first to try to make sense of it. They deserve credit
for hanging onto that bull for the full eight seconds.
As the focus is shifted to a contemporary setting, the
church repeatedly encounters boundaries the
gospel compels us to cross. The church repeatedly
must convert to accept a new reality. For millennia
the church regarded slavery as acceptable, but then
it converted. Then for a century the church