Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Saying: Why didst thou go in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them?

saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised and hast eaten with them.

saying, 'Unto men uncircumcised thou didst go in, and didst eat with them!'

Saying, You went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them.

"You went into the houses of men who are not Jews," they said, "and you ate with them."

Saying, You went to men without circumcision, and took food with them.

saying, "Why did you enter to uncircumcised men, and why did you eat with them?"

on the ground that he had visited people who were not circumcised, and had taken meals with them.

Unto men being uncircumcised. This was not forbidden by the law of God, but it was a tradition which came from the fathers. And yet, notwithstanding, Peter doth not object that they dealt too hardly [1] with him in this point, and that he was not bound by the necessity of man's law. He omitteth all this defense, and doth only answer, that they came first unto him, and that they were offered unto him, as it were, by the hand of God. And here we see the rare modesty of Peter, because whereas, trusting to the goodness of the cause, he might have justly despised unskillful men, who did trouble him unjustly, yet doth he mildly excuse himself as it becometh brethren. This was no small trial in that he was unworthily accused, because he had obeyed God faithfully. But because he knew that this law was enjoined the whole Church, that every man be ready to give an account of his doctrine and life so often as the matter requireth, and he remembered that he was one of the flock, he doth not only suffer himself to be ruled, but submitteth himself willingly to the judgment of the Church. Doctrine, indeed, if it be of God, is placed above the chance and die of man's judgment; but because the Lord will have prophecy judged, his servants must not refuse this condition, that they prove themselves to be such as they will be accounted. But we shall see anon how far the defense both of doctrine, as also of facts, ought to extend. For this present we must know this, that Peter doth willingly answer for himself when his fact is reproved. [2] And if the Pope of Rome be Peter's successor, why is not he bound by the same law? Admit we grant that this submission was voluntary, yet why doth not the successor imitate such an example of modesty showed unto him? Although we need no long circumstance [3] here; for if that be true which the Popes spew out in their sacrilegious decrees, Peter did treacherously betray and forsake the privileges of their seat, [See,] and so he betrayed the See of Rome. For, after that they have made the Pope the judge of all the whole world, affirming that he is not subject to man's judgment; after that they have lifted him up above the clouds, that, being free from giving an account, his will and pleasure may stand for a reason, [law,] they make him forthwith patron of the apostolic seat, [See,] stoutly to defend the privileges thereof. Of what great sluggishness shall Peter then be condemned, if he did lose his right given him of God, by yielding so cowardly? [easily.] Why did not he at least object that he was free from the laws, and exempt from the common sort? But he useth no such preface, but entereth [on] the cause without making any delay. And let us remember, that there is nothing which hindereth us from contemning that idol safely, seeing that usurping such unbridled tyranny, he hath blotted himself out of the number of the bishops. And Peter beginning. Because this narration is all one with [that] which we had in the chapter next (going before,) and because it is repeated almost in the very same words, if any thing need to be expounded let the readers repair thither. The purpose of Peter, and all the whole sum of his speech, shall appear by the conclusion. Yet, before I come thither, we must briefly mark that he maketh the preaching of the gospel the cause of salvation. Thou shalt hear (saith he) words wherein thou mayest have salvation, not because salvation is included in man's voice, but because God, offering his Son there unto eternal life, doth also cause us to enjoy him by faith. This is assuredly wonderful goodness of God, who maketh men ministers of life, who have nothing but matter of death in themselves, and which are not only subject to death in themselves, but are also deadly to others. Nevertheless, the filthy unthankfulness of the world betrayeth itself in this point, which, loathing true and certain salvation offered unto it, and forsaking it when it lieth at the feet, doth imagine divers and vain salvations, in seeking which, it had rather gape being hungry, [4] than to be filled with the grace of God which meeteth it and is present.

Footnotes

1 - "Praecise," strictly.

2 - "Petrum ad causam dicendam libenter descendere quum ejus factum improbatur," that Peter readily condescends to plead his cause when his act is impugned.

3 - "Circuitu," circumlocution.

4 - "Famelicus inhiare mavult," it prefers gaping famished.

And didst eat with them - See the notes on Acts 10:13-14.

Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised - In a Jew, this was no small offense; and, as they did not know the reason of St. Peter's conduct, it is no wonder they should call him to account for it, as they considered it to be a positive transgression of the law and custom of the Jews. There is a remarkable addition here in the Codex Bezae, which it will be well to notice. The second verse of the chapter begins thus: -
Now Peter had a desire for a considerable time to go to Jerusalem: and having spoken to the brethren, and confirmed them, speaking largely, he taught them through the countries, (i.e. as he passed to Jerusalem), and, as he met them, he spoke to them of the grace of God. But the brethren who were of the circumcision disputed with him, saying, etc.

Saying, thou wentest into men uncircumcised,.... Into the houses of such, and lodged with them, and familiarly conversed with them:
and didst eat with them; which, according to the traditions of the Jews, were unlawful; See Gill on Acts 10:28 they say nothing about his preaching to them, and baptizing them, because these were so manifestly agreeable to the commission of Christ, in Matthew 28:19 and yet how these could be without the other, is not easy to say.

Thou wentest in . . . But Peter rehearsed the matter, &c.--These objectors scruple not to demand from Peter, though the first among the apostles, an explanation of his conduct; nor is there any insinuation on Peter's part of disrespect towards his authority in that demand--a manifest proof that such authority was unknown both to the complainers and to himself.

Thou . . . didst eat with them. This was a positive violation, not of the laws of Moses, but of the rules of the orthodox Jews. Though Peter laid aside his Jewish exclusiveness at CÃ&brvbr;sarea, he at least once afterwards relapsed (Galatians 2:12).