Sometimes, reading the Gospels, I feel that the disciples did not understand much about what Jesus said. Often, «they did not understand what he was saying» («And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?» Mt 15, 16; cf. Mc, 9, 6, Luke 18, 34, John 20, 9…), even during the lifetime of Jesus. After his death, it does not appear that the situation has changed

if we are to believe the parable of the tablecloth laid for the meal (Acts 10, 11-16, 11, 5-10). «And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; immolate, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.» (Acts 10, 11-16) «I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.» (Acts 11, 5-10). It is certain that Peter son of Jonah, who never ate non kosherised animals (not prepared to be ritually fit for human consumption), is therefore in front of a major dilemma: should he eat or not eat non «kosher» as he is sent on a mission to the goyim, the Gentiles? But how will he do, when non-Jews will offer him to eat? This barrier of koshrut is considerable, because now he faces faithful believers who are not Hebrews, neither Jews (Judean from Judah) nor Galileans (Israelites, inhabitants of the former northern kingdom, called Galilee). Peter is troubled: for him, all animals, pure as impure, set up on the tablecloth, are a sign that there are neither pure nor impure animals, therefore, all animals are allowed, which, as it must be admitted, greatly facilitates his missionary work among the Gentiles! As his conscience seems to be troubled, (one does not sweep a lifetime of Jewish food laws: it would mean for him to cut himself from the Jews his brothers), this vision is just right to sweep away all his hesitations… And he chose to eat everything one will propose him to eat. Everything? Everything! Absolutely everything. And yet… And yet, if he had paid attention to the minute details of this parable, he might as well be able to take the exactly opposite decision, and be comforted in his reluctance to leave the cocoon of the Hebrew laws … so that he might have decided to continue to observe them. Let me think for him:this tablecloth, tied at the four corners, is a large «tallit», a Hebrew prayer shawl,which consists of a large piece of cloth tied at the four corners. Already, this tablecloth which looks like a tallit should have a clue for Peter … If the cloth is a tallit, and if both non-kosher and kosher food are in the cloth, he must prefer kosher food, worthy of the tallit, leaving to non-Jews the possibility to eat a non-kosher meal, if they wish… Now, the voice from heaven speaking to Peter said: «Rise, Peter, immolate and eat!». Some versions translate: «kill and eat!» But the verb in Greek, θυω, θυσω (Thuo, thusso) leaves no doubt: it means immolating, offering a sacrifice. The Hebrew word thus restore שחיטה, שחט (she’hitah, sha’hat) which means ritually slaughter meat (for sacrifice and eating). However, Peter understands that Jesus asked him to eat even unclean animals (while the voice from heaven asks him to immolate what he wants, that means, to choose according to his free will: it is to concern the animals declared fit to be sacrificed, let alone fit for consumption according to Jewish tradition). Especially since Peter employs the same verb in Greek: to immolate, to offer a sacrifice, when he verbally describes what he happened (Acts 11: 7). Peter therefore is well aware that it means ritually slaughtering animals to eat their meat, which can obviously be achieved only with kosher animals, that is, they are fit for human consumption! As Peter, being caught in pangs of conscience, decided to postpone everything because he has never eaten anything impure, and therefore he denies at the same time the clean animals that he can eat!  Jesus said, «What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.» Again,Peter, interpreting this parable according to the inclination of his desire, understands that he can eat everything. But he could also understand that he must choose to eat «what God has cleansed» that is to say, made suitable for consumption. This vision is renewed three times, as if it were parallel to the three denials of Peter before Jesus’ crucifixion (Mt 26, 58, 69-75, Mk 14, 54, 66-72, Lk 22, 54-62, Jn 18, 16 -18, 25-27). Peter, after this parable, once again denies Jesus… This inner struggle is comparable to that of Cain, when God said to him: «If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And to thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.» (Gen 4, 7). Simon son of Jonah is called to choose «life and good» (Dt 30, 15) and control himself to get the best of himself. However, following the inclinations of his desire (not to be faced with the dilemma of refusing food from Gentiles, among whom he has to go to teach them the Gospels), Peter, in fact, interprets this parable in his own way, which will have fatal consequences for the subsequent history of the Church and of Christian-Jewish relations…