No. Peter would NEVER eat unclean food.

Why?

Like the twelve apostles who Jesus chose to be with Him, Peter was a Jew. The twelve followed God’s Law (the Torah) which forbid Jews from eating unclean food.

Peter was with Jesus when he heard Jesus’ own words regarding this Law: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

But what if someone had a vision indicating some part of the law was no longer to be in force?

The Twelve would have easily recalled the Torah’s own “test” for someone who claimed to have experienced a dream/vision/prophetic message. The Law did not ask “was it a powerful experience?” or even “did a sign happen?” but “does it pull one away from obeying YHWH’s commands?”

1) A vision can be “impressive” and still be condemned if it contradicts Torah

In Deuteronomy 13:1–5:

• If a “prophet” or “dreamer of dreams” arises and gives a sign or wonder,
• and even if the sign/wonder comes to pass,
• but the message is “Let us go after other gods…,”
• one must not listen to him.
• He is labeled a false guide, and the law’s penalty is severe: “that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death” (Deut 13:5).

Key principle: even a fulfilled sign does not validate a message that leads away from covenant loyalty and obedience.

2) A prophet who speaks “in God’s name” contrary to what God commanded is condemned

In Deuteronomy 18:20–22:

• “The prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak… that prophet shall die.” (Deut 18:20)
• A practical test is then given: if a prophet’s prediction does not happen, that word was not spoken by YHWH (Deut 18:21–22).

Key principle: speaking in God’s name does not protect you if the message is unauthorized; failed prediction is a clear disqualifier—but the Torah’s loyalty test (Deut 13) already disqualifies messages that contradict the Law even if something “happens.”

So, if a claimed dream/vision instructs someone to eat what Torah calls unclean, that instruction is in direct opposition to God’s Law. Under the Deuteronomy 13:1–5 standard, that kind of message is to be rejected rather than obeyed.

There is evidence the 1st century Jerusalem church did just that: rejected Paul's message and teachings as anti-Christ. Paul admits all in Asia had deserted him, and the church in Ephesus (located in Asia) is commended for “putting those who call themselves apostles to the test, and they are not, and you found them to be false.” The Ebionites rejected Paul's apostolic authority and labeled him an apostate from the Mosaic Law.

There is evidence the alleged accounts in Acts were written by Gentiles in the second century, long after Peter’s death and contain many unsubstantiated claims.

The letters of Paul, virtually unknown in the 1st century, were suddenly introduced to Rome by Marcion in AD 140 and appealed to Gentile nations who rejected the Jewish Law and the Jewish nation Rome had decisively defeated and dispersed.

By then, no first-hand witnesses of Jesus’ ministry and life remained. While the Twelve were alive the Jerusalem Church could easily dismiss false prophets and teachers whose words did not agree with the Torah and Jesus’ own words. The Jerusalem Church could send emissaries like Peter to various dispersed congregations who were then told, “this is what Jesus actually taught. I know because I was there!”

But long after all first-hand witnesses had died, the Marcionite Church grew so quickly that it overshadowed the mainline Catholic Church who realized they could not simply dismiss Paul, as his letters had become immensely popular among Gentiles. So the Catholic Church declared Marcion a heretic and claimed Paul as their own; in the process rewriting portions of Paul’s letters and adding Luke/Acts, the latter a fabricated attempt to provide a bridge from Peter to Paul.

Thus Gentiles have followed the false teachings of a man, Paul, rejected in the age of the Jerusalem Church and perhaps by Peter in the first century, but resurrected by Marcion in the second century.

It is anti-Christ to teach God’s Law as being set aside. But that’s what Paul did. God the Father (and Jesus His Son) clearly make a distinction between Jew and Gentile. But Paul destroyed that God-made distinction.

Jesus said to call no man, Father. Yet Paul egotistically refers to himself as Father.

Jesus said “Follow Me.” But Paul urged his followers to imitate him, a mere mortal, who clearly admitted he had faults.

Jesus chose twelve to be with Him. But Paul was never with Jesus.

Peter though WAS with Jesus and chosen by Him. And No - Peter would NEVER have eaten unclean food. Peter would have obeyed the Law. He would have (and most likely did) reject the false teachings of Paul and many other anti-Christs.

What a shame the whole of Gentile Christianity has followed a man instead of the Son of Man. What a disgrace to have chosen the man of lawlessness over the Law Giver Himself. For almost 2,000 years blind Gentile nations, following as their guide the false apostle Paul, have remained mired deep in a pit of their own making.

And the only way out demands the total annihilation of the false teacher Paul, his letters, and any works associated with him.

What would be left after such a drastic purge? Only the truth of 3 gospels, 1st Peter, James, John’s 3 letters and Revelation. Oh, and the whole of the Old Testament, especially the Law, as Jesus’ mission was to fulfill it, not to abolish it.

What if THAT is the sure foundation we are to build upon, the Rock of Ages, the Rock once named Peter, to whom the Father revealed His Son as the Christ (Messiah), and whom the Father spoke about saying “Listen to Him!”

Yes, Lord! Help us to listen to Your Son - and to NO OTHER MAN.

author: Jerry Dan Deutschendorf