Acts 10:14

“But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.”

King James Version (KJV)

Other Translations

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I haue neuer eaten any thing that is common or vncleane.
- King James Version (1611) - View 1611 Bible Scan

But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
- New American Standard Version (1995)

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean.
- American Standard Version (1901)

But Peter said, No, Lord; for I have never taken food which is common or unclean.
- Basic English Bible

And Peter said, In no wise, Lord; for I have never eaten anything common or unclean.
- Darby Bible

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
- Webster's Bible

On no account, Lord, he replied; "for I have never yet eaten anything unholy and impure."
- Weymouth Bible

But Peter said, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
- World English Bible

And Petre seide, Lord, forbede, for Y neuer ete ony comun thing and vnclene.
- Wycliffe Bible

And Peter said, `Not so, Lord; because at no time did I eat anything common or unclean;'
- Youngs Literal Bible

Bible commentary

Wesley's Notes for Acts 10:14


10:14 But Peter said, In nowise, Lord - When God commands a strange or seemingly improper thing, the first objection frequently finds pardon. But it ought not to be repeated. This doubt and delay of St. Peter had several good effects. Hereby the will of God in this important point was made more evident and incontestable. And Peter also, having been so slow of belief himself, could the more easily bear the doubting of his brethren, #Acts 11:2|, &c.


Discussion for Acts 10

  • Glen Stuart
    "In the name of Jesus" is the only way to approach God the Father. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man.
  • A disciple
    Thanks Chuck! Well said :) ! Talk to you soon.
  • A disciple
    Hi Chuck; YES! Amen! "For there is no other name given among men whereby we must be saved." And as far as if Peter (being full of the Holy Ghost) was "mistaken;" that's simply nonsense! The part that I was trying to emphasize, is how the Lord Himself commanded to baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and that one DOES NOT negate the other! But BOTH ARE TRUE!
  • Chuck
    To disciple: another way to answer you is this: when I pray for a sick person, I pray in the name of Jesus as does everyone. When I give thanks over a meal, I say in the name of Jesus, as does everyone. And since Col3:17 says everything we do in word or deed , do all in the name of Jesus. That's what I mean when I say someone must be baptized in the name of Jesus. I hope this clarifies the issue.
  • Chuck
    To disciple; because Peter had been with Jesus, he knew the singular name to use in baptism. Peter wasn't mistaken when he commanded the Jews and Gentiles to be baptized in the name of Jesus. He did exactly what Jesus commanded him to do. He found the singular name that is above all names. The name Jesus instead of titles.
  • A disciple
    Hello Chuck; so what do you think that means, "In the Name of the Lord JESUS?" And without straining to falsely spiritualize, do you think it overrides what the Lord Himself said; "...In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?"

Bible Options