"... Peter’s response has confounded many scholars who rationalize how he should have simply selected for consumption a pure animal since all creatures were lying in front of him on the canopy. But Luke is not interested in engaging Peter and the heavens in a battle over semantics. Luke is more eager to move on to the moral of the vision, which really concerns people, rather than delay in portraying Peter trying to outwit a divine mandate that declares (in a vision) all foods to be pure. In this way, Luke chooses to present a Peter who refuses to imply in any way, even in a vision, that he would eat non-kosher animals. This is not the first or last time in Jewish tradition that a human figure will resist a divine mandate to commit an act that presumably involves the transgression of a precept from the Mosaic Torah. The prime example in Ezekiel 4:14 has already been pointed, which might have even inspired the wording of Peter’s reply in Acts 10:14 and 11:8 ..."