John Calvin Commentary Acts 11:3

"saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." — Acts 11:3 (ASV)

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.