Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 11:3
saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
3. Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised ] The expression shews the strength of feeling against what Peter had done. The men with whom he had mixed are not called Gentiles, but the uncircumcised, the word of greatest reproach in the mouth of a Jew.
and didst eat with them ] Among men with whom there would be no regard to the character of the food, nor to the way in which it was prepared.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And didst eat with them – See the notes on Act 10:13-14.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 3. 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, &c.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This is the objection they make against Peter, that, contrary to the tradition of their elders, and precept of their wise men, its had familiarly conversed with the Gentiles: see Act 10:28. This they look upon as piacular, although no conversation in order to the gaining of the Gentiles unto God was ever forbidden, but only such as might withdraw the Jews from God.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3, 4. Thou wentest in . . . ButPeter rehearsed the matter, c.These objectors scruple not todemand from Peter, though the first among the apostles, anexplanation of his conduct nor is there any insinuation on Peter’spart of disrespect towards his authority in that demanda manifestproof that such authority was unknown both to the complainers and tohimself.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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 comments on Ac 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 Mt 28:19 and yet how these could be without the other, is not easy to say.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Thou wentest in (). Direct form, but Westcott and Hort have it (he went in), indirect form. So with (didst eat) and (did eat). The direct is more vivid.
Men uncircumcised ( ). “Men having uncircumcision.” It is a contemptuous expression. They did not object to Peter’s preaching to the Gentiles, but to his going into the house of Cornelius and eating with them, violating his supposed obligations as a Jew (Hackett). It was the same complaint in principle that the Pharisees had made against Jesus when he ate with publicans and sinners (Lu 15:12). The Jews had not merely the Mosaic regulations about clean and unclean food, but also the fact that at a Gentile table some of the meat may have been an idol sacrifice. And Peter himself had similar scruples when the vision came to him at Joppa and when he entered the house of Cornelius in Caesarea 10:28). Peter had been led beyond the circumcision party.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Men uncircumcised [ ] . An indignant expression. See Eph 2:11.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Saying, Thou wentest in to men,” (legontes hoti eiselthes pros andras) “Saying, you entered of your own accord or will to associate with responsible men,” they were disregarding his special call and revelation from God that he was to do so, Act 10:13-20; Act 10:34-35; Act 10:43.
2) “Uncircumcised,” (akrobusian echontas) “With those who were uncircumcised,” did you not? This contention was one of bitterness, not because of Peter’s baptism of Cornelius, as Philip had the eunuch, Act 8:38-39, but because of his socializing with him, eating with him in his own place of lodging, then in Cornelius’ home, Act 10:23; Act 10:25-33.
3) “And didst eat with them,” (kai sunephages autois) “And you did eat with them,” did you not? This was something Peter later sought to avoid, for which Paul reproved him sharply, Gal 2:11-14.
To the Law-clinging Jews it was not so offensive for one to become a believer in or follower of Jesus Christ, and be baptized, as it was to socially fellowship together, by eating and lodging in the same residence, see? The middle wall of separation, in worship and Christian fellowship, had been fulfilled and abolished in the death of Christ, a matter they were obstinate in accepting, Col 2:14-17; Eph 2:11-22.
This act of a Jew eating with a Gentile seems to have become more a traditional law offence than one of Divine origin, Joh 4:6; Joh 18:28; Act 10:28; Mar 7:1-9.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
3. 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 (726) 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. (727) 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 (728) 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, (729) than to be filled with the grace of God which meeteth it and is present.
(726) “ Praecise,” strictly.
(727) “ Petrum ad causam dicendam libenter descendere quum ejus factum improbatur,” that Peter readily condescends to plead his cause when his act is impugned.
(728) “ Circuitu,” circumlocution.
(729) “ Famelicus inhiare mavult,” it prefers gaping famished.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised.The words cannot well be translated otherwise, but the Greek (literally, men with a foreskin) is somewhat more expressive of scorn than the merely negative form of the English. The same word is commonly used by St. Paul where he discusses the relation between circumcision and uncircumcision (Rom. 2:25-26; Rom. 4:9-10; 1Co. 7:18-19, et al.).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Didst eat It was unpopular to make it a charge that he had won Gentiles to Christ, (for with that phase of the matter, as appears by Act 11:1, the Church was pleased,) and so, like cunning accusers, they select the unpopular point, he had eaten with the uncircumcised.
Act 11:3. Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, Saying, wherefore did you associate and eat with the uncircumcised? See Gen 44:4. Luk 2:49.
3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
Ver. 3. Saying, Thou wentest in, &c. ] This was now no fault, but in their conceit only. Ignorance is the mother of many mistakes, and miscarriages thereupon. How exceedingly was Job miscensured by his friends; Gideon and Jephthah by the Ephraimites, Jdg 8:1 ; Jdg 12:1 ; the two tribes and half by their brethren, Jos 22:11-12 . Athanasius passed for a sacrilegious person, a profane wretch, a bloody persecutor, a blasphemer of God, &c. Cyril and Theodoret excommunicated one another for heresy, Postea comperti idem sentire, upon a mere mistake. Basil complains that he was hardly dealt with by brethren that were of the same judgment with himself, but understood him not. Augustine had suffered so long in this kind, that at length he thus resolves, Non curo illos censores qui vel non intelligendo reprehendunt, vel reprehendendo non intelligunt: I care not for those blind censurers that speak evil of what they know not, and of those they understand not. a Charity would teach them to take everything the best way; and not, as logicians do, sequi partem deteriorem, to pick out the worst.
a Cont. Faust. xxii. 34.
Act 11:3 . : the expression intimates the bitterness of the opposition. Bengel curiously comments “benigne loquuntur”. On . see especially Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek , p. 111. : this was the real charge, the violation of the ceremonial law, cf. Act 10:28 ; see on the intolerant division between Pharisaical Jews and Gentiles, Weber, Jdische Theol. , pp. 59, 60; Edersheim, Jewish Social Life , pp. 26 28. There is therefore nothing in the statement to justify the objection raised by Zeller and others against the whole narrative of the baptism of Cornelius (so Wendt, edition 1888 and 1899). But if the complaint against Peter was based not upon the fact that he had baptised Cornelius but had eaten with him, then we can see a great difference between the narrative here and that of the Ethiopian eunuch in chap. 8. In the latter case there was no question of the obligations of the ceremonial law the baptism was administered and Philip and the eunuch separated, but here the whole stress of the narrative lies in the fact referred to in Act 11:3 , so that if the eunuch and Cornelius both belonged to the class of “half-proselytes” their cases are not parallel. But even if they were, in other respects there would still remain a distinction between them. It was one thing for the Ethiopian to be received into the Church of Christ by the Hellenist Philip, but it was another thing and a marked advance when the principle asserted by Philip was ratified by the Apostles of the circumcision in the case of Cornelius. Wendt, edition 1899, pp. 181, 198, and Lightfoot, Galatians , p. 300.
eat with. Greek. sunesthio, as in Act 10:41.
Act 11:3. ) They speak in a kindly tone: they do not call them uncircumcised, but having the foreskin. With this comp. (The sons of Jacob speaking in a conciliatory tone to Shechem and Hamor) Gen 34:14, .- , thou wentest in and didst eat with) An accusation heretofore plausible, and that accusation of a grave character and twofold. But Peter had just reasons for going in; and after he had gone in, he got reasons also for eating with them.
Act 10:23, Act 10:28, Act 10:48, Luk 15:2, 1Co 5:11, 2Jo 1:10
Reciprocal: Jos 22:12 – the whole Mat 20:11 – they murmured Joh 18:28 – and they Act 10:45 – they Rom 2:26 – General Gal 2:12 – he did Gal 2:14 – If thou Col 2:16 – in meat 1Th 2:16 – Forbidding
3
Act 11:3. It was objectionable to them for Peter to have associated with the Gentiles, but it was made worse for him to eat with them. In those days it was regarded as one of the strongest signs of social intimacy, to sit down together with others at a meal. (See 1Co 5:11.) See the notes at Mat 9:11 about eating with others.
Act 11:3. Didst eat with them. This step involved all the rest. See above on Act 10:23; Act 10:28. It was not the communicating the Gospel to the Gentiles which they grudged, but the communicating it in such a way as to do violence to the most cherished principles of the past.
See notes one verse 1
Verse 3
To men uncircumcised; to Gentiles. This complaint shows that the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles and brethren at the day of Pentecost and afterwards, however powerful its influence, was not the means of removing all their erroneous conceptions, or of communicating to them at once even all the fundamental principles of Christian truth. A divine and infallible inspiration can only be claimed for the early Christians as authors,–that is, so far as they were commissioned to write the sacred books of the New Testament for posterity. In their administration of the affairs of the church in their own day, they acted according to their own judgment; and, though they were divinely enlightened and guided in a great degree, still they often erred. We ought to be greatly influenced by their example; but there cannot be claimed for it any absolute divine authority. It is only the Scriptures as writings, which have any claim to be considered as inspired.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament