Acts 11:3Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Here too, however, they do not reproach him for this, since they knew 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 reproach by God's ordering, so that they might be taught, since Peter would not have spoken without need. See how free he is from pride and vainglory. Do you see how unfriendly their reception of him was? Do you see what zeal they had for the law? They were ashamed neither before Peter's dignity, nor before the signs that had taken place. Nor were they ashamed before the great event, that the gospel word had been received by the Gentiles. Instead, they "reproached" him about insignificant matters. If there had been nothing of this kind, the event itself would not have been enough for them.

If then the shepherd, the head of the apostolic Church, who performed signs and wonders in an extraordinary manner, did not consider it beneath him to give a humble explanation when accused, how much more should we sinners appease our accusers with humility when we are censured for something?

The circumcised were clearly certain Christians from among the Jews, as were those who had been with Peter in Cornelius's house (Acts 10:45), but of a somewhat different character and tendency. The former were not scandalized by Peter's dealings with Gentiles. The latter were scandalized, and so strongly that they did not hesitate to reproach Peter openly to his face. This shows that these Christians attached special importance, even within Christianity, to circumcision and uncircumcision. With this they also attached importance to the Mosaic law in general, and even to rabbinic opinions about Jewish conduct in relations with Gentiles, for example, eating food with them. This was the first manifestation, though not yet very strong, of that error, or even false teaching, which the so-called Judaizing false teachers later spread everywhere with such sharpness among Christian communities. Against them, the holy Apostle Paul especially had to contend with great force. In the present case, these circumcised men, zealots for the Jewish law and customs, reproached Peter not because he preached the Gospel to Gentiles and baptized them. They could not regard that as wrong or forbidden, since they could know the command of the Lord Himself to teach all nations, baptizing them (Mt 28:18). Rather, they reproached him because he had allowed himself to enter into close relations with Gentiles in the customs of daily life. He entered a Gentile house, shared a meal with them, and stayed with them as a guest for several days. To the circumcised, this seemed impermissible. It seemed inconsistent with their lofty notion of the holiness of the God-given law, consecrated by rites, and with the 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. Instead, Peter went to the Gentiles, lived with them, and ate with them. Clearly, in the understanding of these circumcised men, the significance of circumcision, the Mosaic law, and 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 demand that Gentiles intending to accept Christianity undergo circumcision, observe the Mosaic law and the customs of the elders, and, in a word, accept Judaism. They would have to become Jewish proselytes so that Christians from among the Jews could enter into close relations with them in daily life. In time this did happen, and the error appeared in even sharper form (chapter 15). But matters had not yet gone that far. Nevertheless, Peter was already compelled to justify his conduct, to calm the troubled feeling of the zealots for the law and customs, and to explain to them the new order of things in this regard.

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?"