7
The last reference reveals that Peter had been attracted by the freedom enjoyed by the converts of Paul"s gospel,
and had ventured even to eat with them, but the old upbringing was too strong for him, and the coming of those of
the circumcision caused him to separate himself once more, his dissembling causing even Barnabas to be carried
away.
There are many passages in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles that show what an hold these Levitical laws had upon
the Jewish conscience. Take the word koinoo, which means "to make common". This is sometimes translated "to
defile" as in the following passages:
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man" (Matt. 15:11).
"To eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man" (Matt. 15:20).
"And when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they
found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft (margin with the fist ... up to
the elbow, i.e. a ceremonious washing, not a washing that is required for ordinary cleanliness), eat not" (Mark
7:2,3).
The following quotation will give some idea of the intensity of feeling that arose in connection with this matter
of eating with a Gentile:
"He who eats with an uncircumcised person, eats, as it were, with a dog; he who touches him, touches, as it
were, a dead body; and he who bathes in the same place with him, bathes, as it were, with a leper" (Pirke Rabbi
Eliezer, 29).
The bearing of all this upon the words and attitude of Peter in Acts 10 is most evident from the following
references:
"Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean" (Acts 10:14).
" ... What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common" (Acts 10:15).
" ... Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of
another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (Acts 10:28).
Here are the words of Peter himself. If we accept the chronology of the Authorised Version, this incident
occurred eight years after Pentecost, and Peter is still by his own confession "A man that is a Jew". He, at least, did
not believe that "the Church began at Pentecost". Not only was he still a Jew, though a believer, but he was still
under the Law. "It is an unlawful thing" said he. How then can we tolerate the tradition that the Church began at
Pentecost? He told Cornelius to his face that he would have treated him as "common and unclean", for all his piety
and prayers, had he not received the extraordinary vision of the great sheet. Yet at Pentecost:
"All that believed were together, and had ALL THINGS COMMON" (Acts 2:44).
When taken with Acts 10 this is absolute proof that no Gentile could have been there. Yet the tradition that the
Church began at Pentecost persists!
Peter, moreover, makes manifest his state of mind by adding, "Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as
soon as I was sent for" (Acts 10:29). Can we imagine the apostle Paul speaking like this even to the most abject of
Pagans? No, the two ministries of these two apostles are poles apart. Further, Peter continued: "I ask therefore for
what intent ye have sent for me?" (Acts 10:29). Can we believe our eyes? Do we read aright? Is this the man who
opened the Church to the Gentile on equal footing with the Jewish believer? He asks in all simplicity, "What is your
object in sending for me?" Again, we are conscious that such words from the lips of Paul would be not only
impossible but ridiculous. He was "debtor" to wise and unwise, to Jew and Gentile, to Barbarian and to Greek. Not
so Peter. He was the Apostle of the circumcision (Gal. 2:8), and therefore the call of Cornelius seemed to him
inexplicable.