[528] St. Chrysostom's exposition, as we gather it from this and the following Homily, seems to be in substance as follows: St. Peter was not ignorant of nor averse to, the counsel of God in respect of the free admission of the Gentiles. He did not need instruction on this point for himself, and the vision was not so much intended for his instruction or assurance, as for reproof to the Jewish believers who were not yet enlightened in this mystery. (Even the token which was given in the descent of the Holy Ghost on Cornelius before baptism, was for them, not for him.) He needed but a command to act upon it without hesitation. But because this would certainly be regarded as a flagrant offence by the weaker brethren, for their sakes this symbolical lesson is given: and the circumstances are so contrived (oikonomeitai) as to silence their objections. It is so ordered, that the matter of accusation is put by them in this form, "Thou didst go in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." Had they said, "Thou didst baptize such," St. Peter could not have alleged that he did it reluctantly: but to the charge of unclean eating he had his answer: "I did object; I said, not so, Lord, for nothing common or unclean," etc. This carried with it his exculpation from the whole matter of offence: for they would apply it thus--"he baptized these Gentiles, but not without objecting to the command; not until his reluctance was overruled," though in fact St. Peter had no such reluctance.
[529] Touto panu autois prosistato (B. and Sav. marg. paristato) Erasm. Et hoc illis valde frequens erat. Ben. Et illis admodum cordi erat. But Hom. xxiv. 2. hina me proste (prosste) autois, Ben. remarks that prosistasthai in the sense "offendere" is frequent in St. Chrysostom. It properly applies to food against which the stomach rises: "to raise the gorge, to be nauseous, disgusting, offensive." See Field Annotat. in Hom. ad Matt. p. 319. B.--Touto, i.e. the going in to men uncircumcised, and eating with them. Comp. Hom. li. in Matt. p. 317. (Am. ed.) "Such was the strict observance in respect of meats, that, even after the Resurrection, Peter said, Not so, Lord,' etc. For though he said this for the sake of others, and so as to leave himself a justification against those who should accuse him, and that he may show that he did object,' (hoti kai anteipon), and for all this, the point was not conceded to him, still it shows how much was made of this matter."
[530] Here besides the clause, "this was done thrice," something is wanting: e.g. "And observe how Peter relates the matter, and justifies himself," viz. in xi. 8, "I said," saith he, "Not so, Lord, for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered my mouth." Here for eipon, B. has eipen, which is adopted by the modern text, in which the whole passage is refashioned thus: "Since then they would all accuse him as a transgressor, and this was altogether offensive to them, of necessity it is managed (oikon.) that he says, "I never ate:" not being himself afraid, God forbid! but, as I said, being managed (oikonomoumenos) by the Spirit, that he may have a justification to those accusing him, namely, that he did object: for they made a great point of keeping the Law. He was sent to the Gentiles: therefore, that these also may not have to accuse him, as I said before, these things are contrived, or also, that it may not seem to be a fancy, he said, Not so, Lord,'" etc.
[531] Peter's vision fitly represents the divine lesson concerning the destination of the gospel and the manner of its progress. None of the apostles doubted that Christianity was for the Gentiles: the great question was, whether it was to be preached to them through the medium of Judaism. Should it still be held within Jewish forms? Should circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law be required? This was a great practical question in the days of transition from Judaism to Christianity. Later Paul became the champion of the idea that it was to be cut loose from the Jewish system. Peter and James came but slowly to this idea. The destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of the Jewish state brought the question to a decisive settlement. Apart from this, however, the Pauline type of teaching on this point constantly gained ground and influence. The vision of Peter takes its place in the gradual development of the idea that Christianity was free from the law--an idea on which he seems after this to have held a somewhat uncertain and vacillating position, so that Paul "resisted him to the face" for his declining to eat with the Gentiles at Antioch on account of the presence of certain delegates from Jerusalem--a practice in which he had, before their coming, engaged (Gal. ii. 11, 12). It is not strange that perplexing questions arose concerning the relations of the new system to the old at this time. The general line of procedure was settled by the apostolic conference at Jerusalem (Acts xv., Gal. i., ii.) and was substantially determined by the apostle Paul. While as matter of fact, the Church has always followed the lead of Paul in this matter, the most diverse views still prevail among Christians as to the relation, theoretically considered, of Christianity to Judaism and the Old Testament Scriptures.--G.B.S.
[532] St. Chrys. seems here to be controverting a different exposition. He will not allow that the vision was meant for instruction to St. Peter, as if he were in ignorance up to this time of the counsel of God concerning the Gentiles. Let it not be said, that like as God did tempt Abraham, so He was putting Peter to the proof whether he would obey the call to the Gentiles, as if Peter understood the vision in that sense. Had he so understood the command, "Kill and eat," he would not have objected; for he could not be either ignorant or unwilling. But he did not so understand it, and his objection was solely to the matter of eating. And as he needed not the lesson (it was intended for others): so neither did God need to learn his willingness. When God tempts, or proves, it is not to learn something that He did not know before; as, when Christ said to Philip, "Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat? this He said tempting, or, proving him, for He Himself knew what He would do." He put that question to Philip that he might the more admire the greatness of the miracle which he was about to work. (see note 2.) But nothing of the kind can be said here: the case is not parallel: the command to baptize the Gentiles would not surprise Peter: he expected no less from the beginning.--His objection, then, was to the thing itself, the command, "kill and eat." And no wonder, for the same Lord had in the Law strictly commanded to distinguish between clean and unclean, while there in the sheet were animals of all sorts indiscriminately.
[533] Hom.xlii. in Ev. Joann. §2. "What meaneth, Tempting, or, proving him? was He ignorant what would be said by him? This cannot be said, ...We may learn the meaning from the Old Testament. For there also it is said, After these things God did tempt Abraham, etc. He did not say this in order to learn by the proof whether he would obey or not--how should it be so? for He knoweth all things before they come into existence: but on both occasions it is spoken after the manner of men. As, when it is said, He searcheth the hearts of men, it indicates the search, not of ignorance, but of perfect knowledge; so when it is said, He tempted, tried, or proved, it means no other than that He perfectly knew.--Or, it may mean, that He made the person more approved: as Abraham there, so Philip by this question, leading him into the sure knowledge of the sign:" i.e. bringing more home to his mind the greatness of the miracle, by leading him in the first place to estimate the utter inadequacy of the means.
[534] Either this refers to the clause, "This was done thrice," etc., which should be inserted; or, the connection may be--This very circumstance of the clean and unclean being together in the sheet (as in the Ark), might have led him to an apprehension of the thing symbolized, viz., that he was not commanded to "kill and eat" the unclean with the clean (by the same Lord who of old had commanded a distinction of meats), but that the time was come to baptize all nations without respect of persons. But, obvious as it may seem, St. Peter was still ignorant what it meant: as the Writer adds, And while Peter was at a loss to know what the vision should mean, etc.--In E. (Edd.) the whole passage from "that this is thrice done, denotes baptism," is refashioned thus: "Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten aught common or unclean.' And why, it may be asked, did he object? That none may say that God was tempting him, as in the case of Abraham, when he was ordered to offer up his son as a sacrifice: as in the case of Philip, when he was asked by Christ, How many loaves have ye? not that he may learn, did He so ask, but proving him. And yet in the Law Moses had distinctly enjoined concerning clean and unclean, both of land and sea; and yet for all this he knew not."
[535] The letters a, b, c, d, denote the order of the parts in the old text. But C. has the formula of recapitulation, both in the beginning of (a), and again in (d), before the verse, "And the Angel said," etc.: E. D. F. Edd. retain it only in the latter place.
[536] 'All' hora pose asphaleia, i.e. how it is made infallibly certain, that it was the purpose of God to admit the Gentiles without circumcision. It might indeed be inserted in (b), after sundiaitatai: "he has no scruples--but mark the greatness of the assurance he has received." In the modern text, the connection is, "He called them in, and lodged them. See what security: (Thea pose asphaleia) in order that they should take no harm, he calls them in, and thenceforth without scruple," etc. i.e. "how sure he feels that he is doing right in receiving them: with what assuredness of mind he does this." But Sav. "See what security for them, in order that they should take no harm."
[537] Dia touto panta ginetai, A. B. C. N. Cat. But Edd. Dio kai ep' auto panta homou oikonomeitai: "wherefore both in his person at once all the circumstances are providentially ordered, and" etc.
[538] Here after the clause, houtos heauto proseichen (meaning, as afterwards explained, that he did not notice the Angel until he spoke), A. B. C. have, Legei de ho angelos k. t. l. Edd. 'All' idomen anothen ta eiremena. Kai eipen ho angelos k. t. l.
[539] The old text: "And thy prayers, saith he. So far," etc. Edd. "And send for Simon, who is called Peter. So far, etc."
[540] The text is defective here. He seems to be commenting upon the variations of the different narratives: viz. the writer himself v. 6. mentions only the command to send for Peter. (p. 142, note 4.) The messengers v. 22 add, "And to hear words of thee." Cornelius, v. 32, "who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee." St. Peter 11, 14, "who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." "On the other hand," he says, "neither does Peter, though he is more full on this point, relate all that the Angel said, but gives only the substance." See the comment on 11, 14.
[541] The modern text, omitting this clause, and the comment, inserts the rest of the verse, "Peter went up," etc.: and has below, But that Peter may not be in perplexity too long, he hears a voice saying, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." But the meaning is, The Spirit caused the vision to take place when they were near the city, that Peter might not be too long in doubt: as above, on the same clause, "Observe how the Spirit connects the times," etc.
[542] 'Emoi dokei kai (om. A. B.) to (om. Cat.) kerugma touto heinai (om. Cat.) Oti theion en to ginomenon to te anothen idein, to te en ekstasei genesthai. (Here deloi, deiknusin, or the like, must be supplied. OEcumen. Deiknutai de hoti theion k. t. l. In the modern text the wording is slightly altered, but the sense is the same. In the latter part, for hoti akatharta en ekei, OEcumen. has ekeina: the modern text substitutes kai to tris touto genesthai, kai to ouranon aneochthenai, kai to ekeithen k. t. l. and at the end, tou theion einai to pragma for katharotetos.--Above, he had said that the sheet was a symbol of the world; now he adds, that the command "Kill and eat" denotes the Gospel, to be preached universally: that the descent of the sheet from heaven, and the circumstance of Peter's being in a spiritual trance, shows that the thing was of God--not a phantasia. Again: that it is all done thrice, denotes baptism: thrice the Voice says, Kill and eat: thrice Peter confesses that the creatures are unclean: thrice it is declared that God hath cleansed them: nay, thrice these unclean creatures are let down from heaven, and drawn up thither again: a mighty proof that they are now clean, and of the Kingdom of Heaven.