John Calvin Commentary Acts 11

And the apostles. While Luke declares that the report of one household that was converted was spread everywhere among the brethren, this arose out of amazement; for the Jews regarded it as something monstrous that the Gentiles should be gathered to them, as if they had heard that men had been made from stones.

Again, the excessive love for their nation hindered them from acknowledging the work of God. For we see that the Church was troubled through this ambition and pride, because the equality, which diminished their dignity, was not tolerable. For this reason, they contended stoutly to bring the necks of the Gentiles under the yoke.

But since it was foretold in so many prophecies of the prophets that the Church should be gathered from all peoples after the Messiah's coming, and since Christ had commanded his apostles concerning the preaching of the gospel throughout the whole world, how can it be that the conversion of a few men should affect some as a strange thing, and terrify others as if it were something monstrous?

I answer that whatever was foretold concerning the calling of the Gentiles was understood as though the Gentiles would be made subject to the Law of Moses so that they might have a place in the Church. But the manner of the calling, the beginning of which they then saw, was not only unknown but also seemed to be entirely contrary to reason.

For they imagined that it was impossible for the Gentiles to be mixed with the sons of Abraham and be made one body with them (with the ceremonies taken away) without great injury being done to the covenant of God. For to what end did the Law serve, except to be the dividing wall to mark the separation?

Secondly, because they had been familiar with that difference their entire lives, the unexpected newness of the situation so struck them that they forgot everything that should have calmed their minds. Finally, they did not immediately comprehend the mystery, which, as Paul teaches, was unknown to the angels from the creation of the world.

They reasoned with him. Obstinacy usually accompanies error. This was now a fault containing too gross ignorance, in that they did not quietly receive the Gentiles into their fellowship, united to them by the same Spirit of faith. But they not only drew back, but also contended with Peter contentiously, and blamed him for his action, which deserved great praise. They heard that the Gentiles had embraced the Word of God; what hindered them then from embracing them, so that they might be joined together under the government of one God? For what more holy bond can there be than when all people, with one consent, are united and joined to God? And why should not those grow together into one body who make the Messiah of God their head? But because they saw the external form of the law broken, they thought that heaven and earth were collapsing.

And note that although Luke said before that the apostles and brethren had heard this news, yet he spoke nothing of offense; but he introduces now, as it were, a new group of men, who contended with Peter. The brethren, he says, heard, and that was all; it follows, When Peter was come to Jerusalem, those which were of the circumcision did contend with him, who were undoubtedly different from the first group. Again, these words “of the circumcision” (Greek: περιτομῆς), do not simply signify the Jews, but those who were too much devoted to keeping the ceremonies of the law.

For there were none from Jerusalem in Christ’s flock at that time, except only those who were circumcised. From whom, then, could he distinguish these men? Lastly, it seems unlikely to be true that the apostles, and those who were moderate among the faithful, attempted this confrontation.

For though they had been offended, yet they might have conferred with Peter privately, and have asked for a reason for his action. For these reasons, I am led to think that those are called “of the circumcision” who placed such great importance on circumcision that they granted no one a place in the kingdom of God, unless he took upon himself the profession of the law, and, being admitted into the Church by this holy rite, put off uncleanness.

To uncircumcised men. This was not forbidden by the law of God, but it was a tradition that came from the fathers. Nevertheless, Peter does not object that they treated him too harshly on this point, or that he was not bound by human law.

He omits all this defense and only answers that they came first to him, and that they were offered to him, as it were, by the hand of God. And here we see the rare modesty of Peter, because although, trusting in the goodness of his cause, he might have justly despised those lacking understanding who troubled him unjustly, yet he mildly excuses himself as is fitting for brethren.

This was no small trial, in that he was unjustly accused because he had obeyed God faithfully. But because he knew that this law was enjoined upon the whole Church—that everyone should be ready to give an account of his doctrine and life whenever the matter requires it—and he remembered that he was one of the flock, he not only allows himself to be governed, but willingly submits himself to the judgment of the Church.

Doctrine, indeed, if it is from God, is placed above the caprice of human judgment; but because the Lord wills that prophecy be judged, His servants must not refuse this condition: to prove themselves to be such as they wish to be regarded. But we will soon see how far the defense of both doctrine and actions ought to extend.

For the present, we must understand this: Peter willingly answers for himself when his action is reproved. And if the Pope of Rome is Peter’s successor, why is he not bound by the same law? Even if we grant that this submission was voluntary, yet why does not the successor imitate such an example of modesty shown to him?

Although we need no lengthy discussion here; for if what the Popes spew out in their sacrilegious decrees is true, Peter treacherously betrayed and forsook the privileges of their see, and so he betrayed the See of Rome. For after they have made the Pope the judge of the whole world, affirming that he is not subject to human judgment; after they have lifted him up above the clouds so that, being free from giving an account, his will and pleasure may stand as law, they immediately make him patron of the apostolic see, to stoutly defend its privileges.

For what great sluggishness, then, will Peter be condemned, if he lost his God-given right by yielding so cowardly? Why did he not at least object that he was free from the laws and exempt from the common rule? But he uses no such preface and addresses the matter without any delay.

And let us remember that there is nothing that hinders us from safely despising that idol, seeing that by usurping such unbridled tyranny, he has blotted himself out of the number of bishops.

And Peter beginning. Because this narration is the same as what we had in the preceding chapter, and because it is repeated in almost the very same words, if anything needs to be explained, let readers refer to that passage. The purpose of Peter, and the whole substance of his speech, will become clear from the conclusion.

Yet, before I come to that point, we must briefly note that he makes the preaching of the gospel the cause of salvation. Thou shalt hear (he says) words wherein thou mayest have salvation, not because salvation is included in man’s voice, but because God, offering His Son there to eternal life, also causes us to enjoy Him by faith.

This is assuredly the wonderful goodness of God, who makes men ministers of life, even though they have nothing but elements of death in themselves, and who are not only subject to death in themselves but are also deadly to others. Nevertheless, the world's filthy unthankfulness reveals itself in this: loathing true and certain salvation offered to it, and forsaking it when it lies at its feet, it imagines diverse and vain salvations. In seeking these, it would rather gape in hunger than be filled with the grace of God that meets it and is present.

I remembered the word of the Lord. We have already explained sufficiently in the first chapter that when Christ spoke those words, he was not making a comparison between two baptisms. Instead, he intended to declare what difference there was between himself and John (Acts 1:5).

For, just as we distinguish the sign from its truth, so it is good to distinguish the minister from the author, lest mortal man claim what is proper to God. Man has the sign in his hand; it is Christ alone who waters and regenerates.

For it matters greatly where men’s minds are directed in seeking the graces of God, because they will not receive a single drop without Christ. Therefore, this is the general difference between Christ and all the ministers of the Church: they give the external sign of water, but he fulfills and performs the effect of the sign by the power of his Spirit.

The readers needed to be reminded of this again in this place, because many falsely infer that John’s baptism and ours are not the same, while Christ, claiming the Spirit for himself, leaves nothing for John except water alone.

But if anyone, trusting in this testimony, makes baptism a cold spectacle and void of all grace of the Spirit, he will also be greatly deceived. For Holy Scripture usually speaks in two ways about the sacraments. Because Christ is not unfaithful in his promises, he does not allow what he institutes to be in vain; yet, when Scripture attributes to baptism the strength to wash and regenerate, it ascribes all this to Christ and only teaches what he works by his Spirit through the hand of man and the visible sign.

When Christ is thus joined with the minister, and the efficacy of the Spirit with the sign, as much is attributed to the sacraments as is necessary (Titus 3:5). However, that union must not be confused, so that men’s minds, being drawn from mortal and frail things, things similar to themselves, and from the elements of the world, may learn to seek salvation from Christ and to look to the power of his Spirit alone. This is because whoever turns aside even a little from the Spirit to the signs misses the mark of faith, and he is a sacrilegious person who takes even an inch of Christ’s praise to adorn man with it.

And we must also remember that Christ included under the word Spirit not only the gift of tongues and similar things, but the entire grace of our renewing. But because these gifts were an excellent demonstration of Christ’s power, this statement may well be applied to them. I will make this clearer: since Christ bestowed upon the apostles the visible graces of the Spirit, he plainly declared that the Spirit was in his hand. By this means, he testified that he is the sole author of purity, righteousness, and of the entire regeneration. And Peter applies this to his purpose in this way: since Christ went before, carrying with him the power of baptism, it was fitting for Peter to follow with the addition, that is, the outward sign of water.

Who was I? Now we see for what purpose Peter gave that account; namely, that he might declare that God was the author and governor of the entire matter. Therefore, the heart of the question turns upon the authority of God: whether food is not of more importance than human counsels.

Peter affirms that he did nothing but what was rightly and orderly done, because he obeyed God. He shows that he preached the doctrine of the gospel neither wrongly nor rashly where Christ bestowed the graces of His Spirit. The approval of our doctrine, and also our deeds, must be measured by this standard whenever people call us to account, for whoever relies on the commandment of God has defense enough.

If people are not content, there is no reason why he should care about their judgments any longer. And from this we gather that faithful ministers of God’s word may give an account of their doctrine in such a way that they do not in any way impair its credit and certainty; namely, if they show that it was given to them by God. But if they must deal with unjust people, who will not be compelled by reverence for God to yield, let us leave them alone with their obstinacy, appealing to the day of the Lord.

And we must also note that we resist God not only by striving against Him, but also by hesitating, if we do not do what our calling requires and what is proper to it. For Peter says that he cannot deny baptism and brotherly fellowship to the Gentiles without being an enemy to God.

One might object: "But he should have attempted nothing that was manifestly contrary to the grace of God." That is true indeed. However, whoever does not receive those whom God offers, and shuts the gate that God opens, hinders the work of God as much as lies in him. This is like what we say today: those people make war against God who are set against the baptizing of infants, because they most cruelly exclude from the Church those whom God has adopted into the Church, and they deprive of the outward sign those whom God is pleased to call His children.

Similar to this is the kind of resisting shown by many hypocrites who, while they are magistrates and ought to assist the martyrs of Christ according to their office, instead try to silence them and take away their liberty. Because they hate the truth, they want it suppressed.