The following abstract from an article by Sidney H. Beard is pertinent and highly interesting : -

It will be noticed that of the creatures let down in the sail, no fish are mentioned; also that Peter declared that he could not eat flesh food because he had never eaten anything defiled or impure. When Peter in narrating the story of his vision to the Jews at Jerusalem, in order to explain to them how he was, by means of it, taught to recognize that Jewish bigotry and exclusiveness were contrary to the Divine Will, he says : "Not so Lord, for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth." Acts 11 : 8. We learn from Peters' own emphatic declaration that he had been a life abstainer from the flesh of animals, and that, consequently, he had not participated in the orthodox observances of the Jews on the occasion of the Passover Feasts. Not only this but we know that Matthew, James (the brother of our Lord) and James the Apostle, never ate animal flesh, and we have the clearest testimony on this point in the writings of the early Christian historians, Hegesippus, Augustine and Clemens. All this goes a long way towards demolishing the assumption of the churches: That the Master would, as a pious Jew, certainly have partaken of the Paschal lamb at the animal feasts. Direct Jewish testimony has affirmed that in those days conscientious objectors to flesh-foods were allowed to observe the Paschal Feast at a table from which the lamb was excluded. In the light of all this it would seem that the aforesaid assumption is broken, and that the flesh of the lamb was not introduced on the night of the supper, seeing that it was held on the "first day of the Feast," when unleavened bread would constitute the appropriate fare.

Peter's Vision was an allegorical dream - intended to teach in like manner as the parables - to teach Peter that just as the animals in the great sheet were not to be called by him common or unclean, neither should he call any man (the Gentiles) defiled or impure. Acts 10 : 28.

Peter never wavered in his conviction that blood stained food was defiled and impure, otherwise he would not have been "puzzled" and questioning in spirit. Evidently he did not, at first, see the true import of the dream, but accepted it as literal, and not as an allegorical presentation.

Peter did not at once grasp the significance of the difference between the new and the old dispensations.

We have every reason to believe that not only Peter himself, but all the other intermediate followers of the Master as well abstained from blood stained food.

Not only this but as a grand climax we have also every reason for believing that the Master Himself was a fitting example for them in this respect, in that he would not condescend to pollute his lips with food procured by the taking of the life of an helpless animal.

It is affirmed in the Jewish Talmud that Jesus sojourned for a number of years in Egypt, where doubtless he would meet with many kindred souls amongst the Essenes, with whom His teachings were in closest harmony. The Essenes abstained from flesh food and lived upon the fruits of the earth.

The teachings of Jesus and the spirit of His entire life and message is utterly at variance with wanton butchery, or the defilement of the human temple by food which is only to be obtained by the slaughter of the innocents. It does not seem possible that Jesus, the first born among the sons of God, descended at any time to that level of human degeneracy, which is characterized by cruelty and brutality of the worst possible description. Heathendom can never be Christianized so long as the sacredness of the life of animals is ignored by the Christian Church. Sacredness of animal life is one of the very first principles recognized by the so-called heathen. It is the very last principle recognized by the so-called Christian Church. Until the Christian Church recognizes this very important matter - this religious difference - little progress can be made in humanizing and Christianizing the so-called "heathens" of the Far East. It there be one thing more than another which the Christian Bible teaches, not only explicitly but by implication as well, it is Love, Humanity, Kindness; kindness not only to man, but to all animals as well.

It is not necessary that the Bible should contain an express and prohibitory command against the use of flesh meats. Science tells us, experience tells us, something within us tells us what is right in this and in many other matters; all we have to do is listen to the voice and follow the leading of the Spirit of Truth, which will surely guide us aright.

Many of the discussions on flesh eating are of the hair-splitting variety, and are merely quibbling side issues in comparison with the great fundamental and underlying physiological principles of the laws governing health, and which every individual can truly interpret for himself. So much for Peter's Vision.