<p>11:3 <i>You went in to men uncircumcised and ate with them</i>-&nbsp;It's easy to assume that the arguments about &quot;regulations about food&quot; (Heb. 13:9) in the first century hinged about what&nbsp;<em>types</em>&nbsp;of food should be eaten, i.e. whether the Mosaic dietary laws should be observed or not. But the angst about &quot;food&quot; was more passionately about&nbsp;<em>with whom</em>&nbsp;you ate. Peter explains in Acts 11:3 how utterly radical it was for a Jew to eat with a Gentile. Bearing this in mind, the way Jew and Gentile Christians ate together at the Lord's supper would've been a breath-taking witness of unity to the watching world. And yet ultimately, Jew and Gentile parted company and the church divided, laying itself wide open to imbalance and every manner of practical and doctrinal corruption as a result. The problem was that the Jews understood 'eating together' as a sign of agreement, and a sign that you accepted those at your table as morally pure. The Lord's 'table manners' were of course purposefully the opposite of this approach. Justin Martyr (<em>Dialogue With Trypho</em>&nbsp;47.2-3) mentions how the Jewish Christians would only eat with Gentile Christians on the basis that the Gentiles firstly adopted a Jewish way of life. And this is the nub of the problem- demanding that those at your table are like you, seeing eating together as a sign that the other has accepted your positions about everything. The similarities with parts of the modern church are uncanny.</p><p>To enter in to a house was itself a religious act; the word is used repeatedly about how Peter entered in to the home of Gentile Cornelius (Acts 10:24,25,27 use the word three times); and Peter was accused by the legalistic brethren of having not only eaten with a Gentile but also of &ldquo;entering in&rdquo; to his home (Acts 11:3). Likewise Lydia felt that Paul could only enter in s.w. to her home if he had judged her to be faithful to the Lord (Acts 16:15,40). But the assumption is made in 1 Cor. 14:23,24 that the doors of the ecclesia should be open to even unbelievers who wished to &ldquo;enter in&rdquo;, with all that implied. James 2:2 uses the same word twice in describing how both rich and poor strangers were &lsquo;coming in&rsquo; to &ldquo;your assembly&rdquo;, and being given different treatment by the assembled believers. The point is, they &ldquo;came in&rdquo;- there was no barrier to them. The church and its table was open.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Peter ate with the uncircumcised- and got into trouble with the Judaist brethren exactly because the Law had forbidden the uncircumcised from eating the first Passover (Acts 11:3). The Jews had put a very large hedge around this law by forbidding Jews from eating with Gentiles period. Yet Peter was taught that this was wrong- and he ate with Gentiles, it seems even before they were baptized. But the point is, he had been taught by the vision that all the old Mosaic category distinctions of clean / unclean, circumcised / uncircumcised, had now been ended. It seems this was as large a challenge to the church in the 1st century as it is in the 21st. It was by eating with Gentiles that Peter openly demonstrated that God had accepted Gentiles (Acts 10,11). In first century Judaism &quot;meals... were principal expressions within Judaism of what constituted purity. One ate what was acceptable with those people deemed acceptable&quot; (Bruce Chilton, <em>Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography</em> (London: Doubleday, 2000) p. 473). Note too how Luke mentions that Paul ate food in the homes of Gentiles like Lydia and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:15,34).</p><p>Eventually Peter wouldn&rsquo;t eat with the Gentile brethren (Gal. 2:12). But he had learnt to eat with Gentile brethren in Acts 11:3; he had justified doing so to his brethren and persuaded them of its rightness, and had been taught and showed, so patiently, by his Lord that he should not make such distinctions. But now, all that teaching was undone. There&rsquo;s a lesson here for many a slow-to-speak brother or sister- what you start by passively going along with in ecclesial life, against your better judgment, you may well end up by actively advocating.&nbsp; It can be fairly conclusively proven that Mark&rsquo;s Gospel is in fact Peter&rsquo;s.</p>