ACC ~ Acts 11 v3

PETER ACCUSED SO THAT THEY MIGHT LEARN. CHRYSOSTOM: The question was not “Why did you preach to them?” but “Why did you eat with them?” But Peter does not respond to this frigid (yes, frigid) objection; he relies on this profound argument: if they had received the Spirit, how could one refuse to give them baptism? But why did they not object in the case of the Samaritans? For on the contrary, neither before nor after their baptism was there any controversy, and they did not become angry on that occasion but, on hearing the news, sent the apostles for this very purpose. As a matter of fact, even here they are not complaining of this, for they knew it was of divine grace. What they ask is, “Why did you eat with them?” Besides, the difference between Samaritans and Gentiles is not so great. Surely it was part of the divine plan for Peter to be accused, so that they too might learn. For Peter would not have spoken without cause. HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 24.

PETER WAS A HUMBLE SHEPHERD. GREGORY THE GREAT: For if, when he was blamed by the believers, he had paid regard to the authority that he had received in holy church, he might have replied that the sheep should not dare to find fault with the shepherd to whom they had been committed. But, had he said anything of his own power in answer to the complaint of the believers, he would not have been truly a teacher of gentleness. He pacified them, therefore, by giving a reason humbly, and he even produced witnesses to defend him from blame, saying, “Moreover these six brothers accompanied me.” If, then, the pastor of the church, the prince of the apostles, who singularly did signs and miracles, did not disdain humbly to give a reason in defending himself from blame, how much more ought we sinners, when we are blamed for anything, to pacify those who blame us by giving a reason humbly! LETTER 45.

Acts