78 Dimensions of Baptism
On the other hand, two lines of evidence suggest that Peter is on a colli-
sion course with this temple-based ideology. First, from 9.32-43 he has not
only departed Jerusalem but has been moving progressively away from the
city—from Jerusalem to 'here and there among all the believers', to
Lydda, to Joppa, and on to Caesarea. His geographical movement is
mirrored in his crossing boundaries of another kind as well, as he takes on
the mantle of healer (who of necessity must move among the sick),
acquires corpse impurity in order to restore a dead woman to life (cf. Num.
19), and finally takes up lodging with a tanner (whose livelihood impli-
cated him perpetually in ritual impurity). Thus, when we find Peter on a
tanner's roof arguing with the Lord over issues of ritual purity (10.9-16),
we can only wonder at Peter's apparent sanctimony.^20 Indeed, it is perhaps
not surprising that, when Peter relates his story to the Jerusalem believers,
he admits only to staying in Joppa (11.5), dropping the not-insignificant
detail that he had been enjoying the hospitality of a tanner! From his perch
on the roof of a tanner's home, the symbolic distance represented by
crossing the threshold of the house of a Gentile centurion is not so far to
traverse. If concerns with purity are correlated with the three matrices of
persons, spaces, and foods, then all three are contravened in this narrative
sequence, for Peter has moved outside the land of the Jews, is interacting
personally with Gentiles, and is directed by the Lord to eat all kinds of
animals. For good reason, study of the Cornelius episode has, in recent
years, shifted away from a narrow focus on Cornelius's conversion in
favor of an emphasis on Peter's.^21Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology [SNTSMS, 57; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987], pp. 76-86). Relevant primary sources sketching
Greco-Roman views toward Jewish food laws are conveniently gathered in Molly
Whittacker, Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views (CCJCW, 6; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 73-80.- Peter's hypocrisy is only 'apparent' because he (and with him, others of the
Jerusalem community of Jesus' followers, according to Acts) is himself deeply embed-
ded in the temple-centered ideology expressed in his challenge to the Lord's instruc-
tions. His own transformation is ongoing! - See esp. Beverly R. Gaventa, From Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion
in the New Testament (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 107-22; Esler,
Community and Gospel, pp. 93-97; Mark A. Plunkett, 'Ethnocentricity and Salvation
History in the Cornelius Episode (Acts 10.1-11.18)', in SBLSP (1985), pp. 465-79.
This shift in interpretive focus is underscored by the many points of contact between
Peter and Jonah, both reluctant messengers sent to bring good news to the Gentiles—
see Robert W. Wall, 'Peter, "Son" of Jonah: The Conversion of Cornelius in the