Acts 11:2Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Yet here also they do not rebuke him for this, since they knew that it was the work of God’s grace. Instead they say, “Why did you eat food with them?” On the other hand, there is a great and incomparable difference between Samaritans and Gentiles. Or perhaps he was subjected to rebuke according to God’s good ordering, so that they might learn. For Peter would not have spoken without necessity. See how he is neither proud nor vainglorious. Do you see how unfriendly their reception of him was? Do you see what zeal they had for the law? They were not ashamed by Peter’s dignity, nor by the signs that had occurred, nor by the great event that the Gospel word had been received by the Gentiles. Instead, they “contended” about these minor matters. If nothing of this sort had taken place, the event itself would not have been enough for them.

But they had a somewhat different character and tendency. Those others were not scandalized by Peter’s association with Gentiles. These were scandalized, and so strongly that they did not hesitate to reproach Peter to his face. This shows that these Christians attached special importance, even within Christianity, to circumcision and uncircumcision. Along with this, they attached importance to the Mosaic law in general, and even to rabbinic opinions about how Jews should conduct themselves in dealings with Gentiles, for example, concerning eating food with them. This is the first, though not yet very strong, manifestation of the error, or even false teaching, which later the so-called Judaizing false teachers spread everywhere among Christian communities with such sharpness. Saint Paul especially had to contend strongly against them. In the present case, these circumcised zealots for the Jewish law and customs did not reproach Peter for preaching the Gospel to Gentiles and baptizing them. They could not regard this as improper or forbidden, since they could have known the Lord’s own command to teach all nations, baptizing them; Mt 28:18. Rather, they reproached him because he allowed himself to enter into close relations with Gentiles in ordinary customs of daily life. He entered the house of Gentiles, shared a meal with them, and was their guest for several days. To the circumcised this seemed forbidden and inconsistent with the exalted conception of the holiness of the God-given law, sanctified by rites, and with sacred customs handed down by tradition from the elders. They were scandalized that the Gentiles had not come to Peter to ask him for baptism, but Peter had gone to the Gentiles, lived with them, and eaten with them. Evidently, in the understanding of these circumcised believers, the meaning of circumcision and of the Mosaic law, with its rites and customs, had not yet been clarified. In this lay the seed of error. One more step in this direction, and they could have demanded that Gentiles intending to receive Christianity undergo circumcision, keep the Mosaic law and the customs of the elders. In a word, they could have demanded that they accept Judaism and become Jewish proselytes, so that Christians from the Jews might enter into close relations with them in daily life. In time this is what happened, and this error appeared in even sharper features, chapter 15. But now matters had not yet reached that point. Nevertheless Peter was already compelled to justify his manner of acting, calm the troubled feeling of the zealots for the law and customs, and clarify for them the new order of things in this respect.

Therefore some Jewish Christians kept the old rites for a very long time. Others wanted them observed not only by Christians from among the Hebrews, but also by former Gentiles. Of course, all this was not clarified and expressed at once. At first, those who heard of the Gentiles' conversion to Christ reproached the Apostle Peter for not observing the most common Jewish customs. These were not to have contact with Gentiles and not to eat with them. Those who reproached Peter evidently thought of Christianity as so closely and inseparably joined to Judaism that they seemed not to know, or not to wish to know, that Peter had table fellowship not with Gentiles, but with Christians. Yet all who reproached Peter undoubtedly knew the necessity of the Gentiles' conversion to Christ. There was a clear commandment of the Lord concerning this: "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them" (Mt 28:19). As blessed Theophylact observes: "Those of the circumcision disputed, not the apostles. See what zeal they had for the law. They were ashamed neither before Peter's dignity, nor before the miracles that had taken place, nor before the excellent preparation made for receiving the word. Instead, they began to dispute about such trifles. They do not say, Why did you preach? but, Why did you eat?"