I love that story, which is why I\u2019ve linked to those chapters from Acts, reprinted them here, and summarized them many times. It\u2019s a terrific story from the Christian Bible and I want everyone to read the whole thing. For some reason, that leads my conservative friends to accuse me of desperately wanting to hide<\/em> this story and to prevent people from reading it. Please go read it<\/a>.<\/p>\n (Seriously, click the link there with the words \u201cgo read it.\u201d Or click this link here<\/a>. Read<\/em> it. Read what it actually says<\/em> rather than just what these alleged \u201cconservatives\u201d pretend it says. Go read it<\/a>.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Part of my fascination with that story, yet again, is that so many modern American readers of it insist that the apostle Peter was some kind of disobedient jerk who could not be trusted to report honestly on the meaning of the vision that God gave to him alone and that he alone witnessed.<\/p>\n That\u2019s what Southern Seminary president Al Mohler says about this story<\/a>. And it\u2019s what this guy says about this story<\/a>.<\/p>\n They don\u2019t say this explicitly, in exactly those words. But they want to tell you what Peter\u2019s vision means. And what they tell you it means is not at all the same thing as what Peter himself said it means and what Peter himself showed<\/em> it to mean.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t listen to Peter, they argue \u2014 Peter cannot be trusted to tell us what Peter\u2019s vision means. And don\u2019t listen to Luke.* Both of them pervert the obvious meaning of Peter\u2019s vision, refusing to stick with the obvious literal interpretation of this divine revelation.<\/p>\n So, OK, here, for the um-tiddly-umpteenth time, is Peter\u2019s vision as described in Acts 10:11-16<\/a>, quoted here in the approved conservative formulation that surgically segregates those five verses from the whole story as told in Acts 10:1 through Acts 11:18<\/a> in which it reinforces the themes, also, of the larger story told in Acts 1:1 through Acts 28:31, inclusive:<\/p>\n He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. Then he heard a voice saying, \u2018Get up, Peter; kill and eat.\u2019 But Peter said, \u2018By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.\u2019 The voice said to him again, a second time, \u2018What God has made clean, you must not call profane.\u2019 This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This vision, Team Mohler says, correctly, is very specific. It\u2019s about food and diet and doesn\u2019t mention anything else \u2014 nothing about sexuality or gender or ethnicity or liberation or Jubilee or reconciliation. God speaks in the imperative and God\u2019s words are clear, direct and specific: \u201cKill and eat.\u201d This imperative applies specifically to that which is shown in the vision, to \u201call kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air.\u201d<\/p>\n The voice of God speaks in this vision and Team Mohler notes that the voice of God is unambiguous and explicit. We have a verbatim quote from God: \u201cWhat God has made clean, you must not call profane.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s God Almighty talking there. God Almighty, the source<\/em> of this vision, explicitly states the meaning of the vision and sets a clear, unambiguous boundary on that meaning. To miss that point or to try to change God\u2019s words would be to contradict the explicit, verbatim words of God Almighty.<\/p>\n That\u2019s a powerful argument there from Team Mohler. Seems conclusive. They\u2019ve cited chapter and verse and the authority of the very words of very God.<\/p>\n And yet some of us \u2014 obstinately \u2014 refuse to accept that this is all that this vision meant or all that it means or ought to mean. Worse than that, some of us who insist that this vision meant something more than that have the audacity to put other words into the mouth of God<\/em>. We insist on changing<\/em> the words that God Almighty spoke to Peter and, thereby, vastly altering and expanding the meaning of this revelation.<\/p>\n Let me note yet again that this vast alteration of the explicit words of God wasn\u2019t my<\/em> idea. If you want to blame someone here for changing the words and misquoting Almighty God, blame Peter and Luke. They started it.<\/p>\n They started it almost instantaneously, seconds after Peter received the vision, with the explicit words of God still ringing in his ears. In that instant, Luke writes, Peter reveals the confusion that would lead to his changing the words God spoke. Here is the very next verse:<\/p>\n Now while Peter was greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen \u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What is that<\/em> all about? How could he possibly be \u201cpuzzled\u201d? How could Peter fail to understand the very explicit meaning of what he had just seen, of what he had just heard God Almighty say, verbatim, three times?<\/em><\/p>\n This puzzlement separates Peter from Team Mohler. Mohler et. al.<\/em> read the account of Peter\u2019s vision in Acts 10:11:16 and they are not puzzled at all. They know exactly what it means and what it doesn\u2019t mean and don\u2019t see any basis for Peter\u2019s confusion. It\u2019s obvious. It\u2019s clear. God spoke and all we have to do to understand is to listen to the literal words that God literally said: \u201cWhat God has made clean, you must not call profane.\u201d The \u201cfour-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air\u201d that had previously been forbidden as un-kosher were now fair game.<\/p>\n But the apostle Peter doesn\u2019t listen to those verbatim words from God. Instead he listened to something else \u2014 to the knocking at his door. That knocking heralds the arrival of the two-footed, warm-blooded, un-feathered gentile servants from the household of the Roman centurion Cornelius. With the arrival of these visitors Peter arrives at a new conclusion about the meaning of his vision. He arrives at a conclusion that Team Mohler insists is the wrong<\/em> conclusion \u2014 one that contradicts and changes <\/em>the very words God Almighty has just spoken to him.<\/p>\n And make no mistake about it, Peter does exactly that. He changes the words. He misquotes God. \u201cWhat God has made clean, you must not call profane,\u201d God said. God said it, Team Mohler believes it, and that settles it. But Peter unsettles things by changing those words, saying instead that, \u201cGod has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s not what God said. God didn\u2019t say \u201cwho,\u201d God said \u201cwhat.\u201d God was talking about \u201call kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air,\u201d and saying that un-kosher food is no longer forbidden. Peter\u2019s formulation is radically different \u2014 it\u2019s sweeping and universal in scope, going far beyond what God actually said in the vision. \u201cGod has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.\u201d<\/p>\n Rebellion. Sin. Apostasy. Peter is putting words into the mouth of God. New<\/em> words, different<\/em> words, incompatible words that directly contradict<\/em> what God Almighty had said, verbatim, just a few verses earlier.<\/p>\n To make matters worse, Luke plays along with Peter\u2019s alteration of the words of God. The following chapters of Acts treat Peter\u2019s perverse paraphrase of the words of God as authoritative, denying and defying the clearer, more obvious, less expansive literal<\/em> meaning of the words God spoke.<\/p>\n This rewriting of divine revelation, this putting strange new words into the mouth of God Almighty is, alas, not unique to Peter and Luke. It happens all over the place in the Bible.<\/p>\n Isaiah** did the same thing Peter did. It\u2019s an even more egregious case, actually.<\/p>\n In Isaiah 58<\/a>, the prophet directly contradicts and alters the clear and unambiguous words of God as revealed in the books of Moses.*** God ordained and commanded feast days. God decreed particular sacrifices and offerings. These were not optional. This was the word of God Almighty.<\/p>\n But not only does Isaiah dismiss those explicit, verbatim words of God, he has the gall, like Peter, to put new<\/em> words into the mouth of God. Isaiah brazenly interprets his own vision from God as a contradiction of what is clearly and explicitly established as God\u2019s will. It\u2019s not just that Isaiah makes God ridicule and dismiss those earlier divine statements about feast days, fast days and sacrifices, he also puts words in the mouth of God that deal with a much larger subject. Isaiah 58 changes what God had to say about the singular theological question that has shaped American history, American culture and American Christianity more than any other theological question: the matter of slavery.<\/p>\n The laws of Moses did not condemn slavery. The laws of Moses permitted, regulated and condoned<\/em> slavery. In the books of Moses, the people of God were sometimes commanded<\/em> to take slaves and to keep slaves and to punish slaves. Abraham, a righteous man blessed by God, owned slaves. Abraham\u2019s owning of slaves did not adversely affect his standing with God as a righteous man or cause him to lose God\u2019s blessing. On the contrary \u2014 Abraham\u2019s owning of slaves is portrayed in the books of Moses as a sign of God\u2019s blessing<\/em>. We know that Abraham and others were righteous and blessed, in part, because they owned so many<\/em> slaves.<\/p>\n That\u2019s in the Bible. That\u2019s canon.<\/p>\n And yet here comes Isaiah to turn all of that upside-down. Here comes Isaiah to put new<\/em> words into the very mouth of very God \u2014 words that contradict<\/em> the canonical words God spoke to Abraham and to Moses. Here comes Isaiah, like Peter, to suggest that the clearest, most straightforward and literal obvious meaning of those words of God is wrong<\/em> \u2014 that the literal face-value meaning of those words is inadequate,<\/em> that it\u2019s not nearly big enough<\/em> or expansive enough or inclusive enough.<\/p>\n Rebellion. Sin. Apostasy, etc.<\/em><\/p>\n Is not this the fast that I choose: That\u2019s in the Bible too. That\u2019s also canon.<\/p>\n So here we are: Scripture vs. scripture, the Bible vs. the Bible. How are we to make sense of this?<\/p>\n That\u2019s a difficult problem for any subject in any context. But we\u2019re not talking about just any subject or just any context \u2014 we\u2019re talking about the subject of slavery in the context of America. And that takes things to a whole other level.<\/p>\n The question of slavery was the foremost theological controversy in America in the 19th century, but it was never simply an abstract question for scholars in ivory towers to debate abstractly and disinterestedly. There was way too much money at stake for that.<\/p>\n It may seem crass to suggest that any<\/em> amount of money at stake would influence a theological dispute or the way that Christians relate to and interpret the Bible, but you really need to appreciate the amount of money<\/em> we\u2019re talking about here.<\/p>\n No, no, no \u2014 much<\/em> more money than that.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not sure how much money you were thinking about when you read that phrase \u201ctoo much money at stake,\u201d but you\u2019re underestimating the sheer, vast, mind-boggling size<\/em> of the pile of money at stake in this dispute. Whatever amount you were imagining, the amount of money at stake in this controversy is bigger than that \u2014 even if you\u2019re taking into account that the amount is bigger than what you\u2019re imagining. Here\u2019s Yale historian David Blight<\/a>:<\/p>\n By 1860 there were approximately 4,000,000 slaves in the United States, the second largest slave society \u2014 slave population \u2014 in the world. The only one larger was Russian serfdom. \u2026 In 1860 slaves as an asset were worth more than all of America\u2019s manufacturing, all of the railroads, all of the productive capacity of the United States put together. Slaves were the single largest, by far, financial asset of property in the entire American economy. The only thing worth more than the slaves in the American economy of the 1850s was the land itself, and no one can really put a dollar value on all of the land of North America.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So it\u2019s hard to imagine that the pro-slavery side of America\u2019s epic theological dispute over slavery could have been wholly disinterested.<\/p>\n And the anti-slavery side, of course, wasn\u2019t disinterested either. Frederick Douglass, for example, never even tried to approach the theological and hermeneutical controversy over slavery from a vantage point of impartial abstraction. His personal interest in the controversy was unquantifiable \u2014 it was priceless<\/em>.<\/p>\n So both sides had more at stake than can be easily imagined and the theological battle-lines were drawn.<\/p>\n On the one side were the ancestors \u2014 in every sense \u2014 of Team Mohler. They defended slavery by citing chapter and verse from the Bible and by arguing that this is how the Bible must always be read and understood, by citing chapter and verse. They listed dozens of biblical passages that unambiguously permitted, condoned or commanded slavery. Such passages, they said, must be interpreted literally. That was the only acceptable way to read the very words of very God. \u201cLiteral\u201d became a rallying cry, a battle cry that shaped one faction\u2019s theology throughout the 19th century and, thereafter, on through the 20th century and into the 21st.<\/p>\n But the other side quoted the Bible, too. They had a few passages, such as that chapter of Isaiah, that were no less explicit and unambiguous in condemning<\/em> slavery. But this side didn\u2019t rest its case on a literal reading of those literal words. Instead, they stepped back to look at the bigger picture, at the trajectory<\/em> of the Bible, at the character of God portrayed in that Bible and the characteristics it taught for any people who sought to be God\u2019s children. They sometimes cited chapter and verse, but they also sought to put verses into the context of chapters, and chapters into the context of books, and books into the context of a larger whole. For them the big picture was clear, and no single chapter-and-verse data point from one location along the grand trajectory could rightly be interpreted \u2014 \u201cliterally\u201d or otherwise \u2014 as contradicting the clear meaning and direction of the whole.<\/p>\n So who won this theological argument? In a sense, the big-picture people did, but they didn\u2019t really win on theological grounds. They argued that their hermeneutic was more consistent and more respectful of the whole of scripture, but that contention didn\u2019t turn out to matter quite as much for the outcome of this debate as did, say, Gen. Sherman\u2019s burning of Atlanta. They came out on top in the theological dispute because they were aligned with the side that came out on top in the Civil War.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/52\/2012\/05\/Joppa3.jpg\")
<\/a>
\nto loose the bonds of injustice,
\nto undo the thongs of the yoke,
\nto let the oppressed go free,
\nand to break every yoke?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n