1) (It was not directly that he changed his behavior.) It had to do with WHY he changed his behavior.
2) The gospel says people become acceptable to God and others within God’s family by one condition alone: dependence on the cross-death of Jesus, which removed our sin-guilt.
3) By his actions Peter was definitely saying that to be acceptable with God and his people required not eating certain food. Here’s how:
4) Now, keeping moral values that were still in effect (truth telling, etc.) would not clearly demonstrate that a person is basing acceptance on rule-keeping. (He could be doing it to please his Father, whom he knows already accepts him via his dependence on the cross.)
5) But the dietary rules were no longer in effect by this time (Mk 7; Acts 10). (They were temporary rules for the Jews, to teach lasting lessons in how sin separates us from God and how much it would cost to bring us to him.)
6) Also, an individual’s rule-keeping of either ‘real’ rules or ceremonial rules does not demonstrate that the person is doing it in order to be accepted. He could be keeping ceremonial rules because his conscience is still (wrongly) telling him to keep them (in which case he should, even though his conscience is giving him bad information), or he could be keeping cermonial rules to keep from influencing a new believer from violating his conscience which is still telling him, incorrectly, that some behavior is morally wrong when in fact it is amoral.
7) But if an individual or group compels others to keep rules that are no longer (or never have been) “in effect,” then this clearly demonstrates an embracing of acceptance by rule-keeping, which is a violation of the gospel. Because there is only one reason to compel another person to keep non-absolute rules, and that reason is: to make that person acceptable to the enforcer.
