Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 11:2
And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
2. they that were of the circumcision ] This must have been the whole Church, at the time when the event occurred, for there were no Christians as yet except Jews and proselytes, but St Luke’s narrative was compiled at a time when “they that were of the circumcision” had become a distinct party, and when their influence had begun to work division in the Christian societies. He therefore employs a name which when he wrote was full of significance, although it had its origin only in the circumstances to which he here applies it. Those who had been born Jews and knew of Jesus as conforming to the Law, and who had not heard of Peter’s vision nor seen the gift of the Holy Ghost to Cornelius and his friends, as those who had been with Peter had done, were to be pardoned, if their scruples caused them to question the conduct of the Apostle at this time; yet when they heard his story they were satisfied (see Act 11:18), but many Jewish Christians elsewhere continued to make this subject a cause of contention. See Act 15:1.
contended with him ] The verb is a very significant one. It is the same that is used with a negative in Act 10:20, Act 11:12, “nothing doubting,” and Act 15:9, “making no difference.” The thought of these men who contended was that the difference between Jew and Gentile should still be maintained, and that any close fellowship (such as was involved in living at the same board) with those who accepted Christianity otherwise than through the gate of submission to the Mosaic Law, should be avoided. As the Jews in Caesarea had (Act 10:22) behaved towards Cornelius, before he became a Christian, so would the Judaizing feeling have prompted the Church of Christ to deal with him still. And when we think on the prejudice which, by generations of ceremonial observance, had grown up among the Jews, we cannot wonder greatly at what they did. A whole nation is not brought to a change of feeling in a day.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
They that were of the circumcision – Christians who had been converted from among the Jews.
Contended with him – Disputed; reproved him; charged him with being in fault. This is one of the circumstances which show conclusively that the apostles and early Christians did not regard Peter as having any particular supremacy over the church, or as being in any special sense the vicar of Christ upon earth. If he had been regarded as having the authority which the Roman Catholics claim for him, they would have submitted at once to what he had thought proper to do. But the earliest Christians had no such idea of Peters so-called authority. This claim for Peter is not only opposed to this place, but to every part of the New Testament.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. Contended with him] A manifest proof this that the primitive Church at Jerusalem (and no Church can ever deserve this name but the Jerusalem Church) had no conception of St. Peter’s supremacy, or of his being prince of the apostles. He is now called to account for his conduct, which they judged to be reprehensible; and which they would not have attempted to do had they believed him to be Christ’s vicar upon earth, and the infallible Head of the Church. But this absurd dream is every where refuted in the New Testament.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
They that were of the circumcision; they were such Jews as conversed with them of the church, and argued against them for taking in the Gentiles into any fellowship with them. But it may be that the believing Jews might for a time be very weak, and offended at it, until they were further satisfied by the following relation of St. Peter: till then they disputed, and brought what arguments they could against it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. they . . . of thecircumcisionnot the Jewish Christians generally, for herethere were no other, but such as, from their jealousy for “themiddle wall of partition” which circumcision raised between Jewand Gentile, were afterwards known as “they of thecircumcision.” They doubtless embraced apostles as well asothers.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem,…. From Caesarea, after he had stayed some certain days in Cornelius’s house; so a journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem is called an ascending from the one to the other, Ac 25:1 because Jerusalem stood on higher ground, as well as was the metropolis of the country; and this was a journey of six hundred furlongs, or seventy five miles, for so far, according to Josephus t, was Caesarea distant from Jerusalem:
they that were of the circumcision, which phrase designs not only the circumcised Jews that believed in Christ, for such were all they of the church at Jerusalem, or at least proselytes that had been circumcised, for as yet there were no uncircumcised Gentiles among them; but those of them, who were most strenuous for circumcision, and made it not only a bar of church communion, but even of civil conversation:
these contended with him; litigated the point, disputed the matter with him, complained against him, and quarrelled with him. Epiphanius says u, that Cerinthus, that arch-heretic, was at the head of this contention.
t De Bello Jud. l. 1. c. 3. sect. 5. u Contr. Haeres. l. 1. Haeres. 28.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
They that were of the circumcision ( ). Literally, those of circumcision (on the side of circumcision, of the circumcision party). The phrase in 10:46 is confined to the six brethren with Peter in Caesarea (11:12). That can hardly be the meaning here for it would mean that they were the ones who brought the charge against Peter though Hort takes this view. All the disciples in Jerusalem were Jews so that it can hardly mean the whole body. In Ga 2:12 the phrase has the narrower sense of the Judaizing or Pharisaic wing of the disciples (Ac 15:5) who made circumcision necessary for all Gentile converts. Probably here by anticipation Luke so describes the beginning of that great controversy. The objectors probably did not know of Peter’s vision at Joppa, but only of the revolutionary conduct of Peter in Caesarea. These extremists who spoke probably had abundant sympathy in their protest. The apostles are mentioned in verse 1, but are not referred to in verse 2. Apparently they are in contrast with the circumcision party in the church.
Contended (). Imperfect middle of the common verb , to
separate . Here to separate oneself apart (), to take sides against, to make a cleavage (, two, in two) as in Jude 1:9. So Peter is at once put on the defensive as the contention went on. It is plain that Peter was not regarded as any kind of pope or overlord.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
They of the circumcision. See on ch. Act 5:45.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And when Peter was coming up to Jerusalem,” (hote de anebe Petros eis lerousalem) “Then when Peter went up to Jerusalem,” from his Joppa and Caesarea experiences, especially, Act 9:10.
2) “They that were of the circumcision,” (hoi ek peritomes) “Those who were out of or from among (the) circumcision,” the Jews, the professed believers in Jesus, a large number still contended that they should observe the law to stay saved, Gal 2:1-13.
3) “Contended with him,” (diekrinonto pros auton) “Disputed with him,” Act 15:1-5; or entered a contention over the matter of his conduct at Cornelius’ house with him, as the Devil contended with Michael, with sharp, contrasting views, Jud 1:9; Gal 2:11-14.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. They reasoned with him. Obstinacy doth for the most part accompany error. This was now a fault having in it too gross ignorance, in that they did not quietly receive the Gentiles into their bosom, united to them by the same Spirit of faith. But they do not only leap back, but also contend with Peter contentiously, and blame him for his fact, which deserved great praise. They hear that the Gentiles have embraced the Word of God; what letteth them then from embracing them, that they may be coupled together (724) under the government of one God? For what more holy bond can there be, than when all men, with one consent, are coupled and joined to God? And why should not those grow together into one body who make the Messiah of God their head? But because they saw the external form of the law broken, they thought that heaven and earth did go together. (725)
And note, that although Luke said before that the apostles and brethren had heard this fame, yet he spake nothing of offense; but he bringeth in now, as it were, a new sect of men, which did contend with Peter. The brethren, saith he, heard, and there an end; it followeth, When Peter was come to Jerusalem, those which were of the circumcision did contend with him, who were undoubtedly unlike to the first; again, these words περιτομης, do not simply signify the Jews, but those who were too much addicted to keeping the ceremonies of the law. For there were none of Jerusalem in Christ’s flock at that time, save only those which were circumcised. From whom, then, could he distinguish those men? Lastly, it seemeth to be a thing unlike to be true that the apostles, and those which were moderate being of the number of the faithful, did attempt this combat. For though they had been offended, yet they might have conferred with Peter privately, and have demanded some reason of his fact. By these reasons am I moved to think that those are said to be of the circumcision who did make so great account of circumcision, that they granted no man a place in the kingdom of God, unless he took upon him the profession of the law, and, being admitted into the Church by this holy rite, did put off uncleanness.
(724) “ Societam colant,” may cultivate communion.
(725) “ Misceri,” were confounded.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) They that were of the circumcision contended with him.The conversion of the Gentiles at Csarea had given a new significance to the name of those of the circumcision. From this time forth they are a distinct section, often a distinct party, in the Church, and here we have the first symptom of the line which they were about to take. They contended with Peter (the tense implies continuous or repeated discussion) because he had eaten with those who were uncircumcised, and therefore, from the Jewish point of view, unclean.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Come up From the maritime lowlands upon which Cesarea and Joppa stood. But in ancient times the term up was customarily used not only in regard to approaching any high locality, but any great capital, or point of moral or political eminence. Xenophon’s history of the march to Babylon (from which his ten thousand made a famous retreat) is entitled the Anabasis, that is, the Going-up, although Babylon was in a vast plain really lower than Asia Minor, whence Xenophon started. This use of up arises partly front the fact that ancient great cities were usually for defence placed upon some strong height, and, partly from the idea of elevation, associated with greatness and power.
They that were of the circumcision Greek, , those from circumcision. All the Christians then in Jerusalem were circumised Jews, and so of the circumcision; but Luke uses the phrase as designation of the partisans of necessary circumcision.
Contended with him They held him not for a pope, but a heretic. What will become of Moses, the Law, and the Temple if he, the most eminent of the apostles, lowers himself to the level of Saul of Tarsus, and allows baptism to be, not the sequence, but the substitute of circumcision!
‘And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, those who were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, “You went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them.” ’
So when Peter arrived back in Jerusalem ‘those of the circumcision’ came to him to ‘contend’ (or ‘make a distinction’) with him. In Act 10:45 ‘those of the circumcision’ had referred to Peter and the six men who were with him. It had meant simply all those who were present who were circumcised. We are not therefore probably intended at this stage to see it here as referring to a particular group. We may rather see it as referring to all who were there who were circumcised, (and so everyone), and as being used by Luke simply in order to emphasis their circumcision and contrast them with the uncircumcised whose position they were discussing. On this interpretation all the Apostles and brethren are thus to be seen as included in the description.
However, some see it as referring to a group who particularly stressed the need for circumcision and considered it a major issue. There would certainly be such a group later when circumcision had become an issue. And even now it may be that of those who had come to question Peter some (such as the Apostles) were neutral, waiting to hear his explanation, while others were specifically intent on taking up the issue of circumcision, a subject that they saw as of deep concern (although if that were so it is interesting that they did not do so). There would certainly be shades of feeling on how important the issue was, and on how important ‘cleanness’ was. Not all the Apostles had always been too particular (Mar 7:2). And even Jesus would refrain from ritual washing in order to make a point (Luk 11:38). In the end it does not really matter, for all were undoubtedly there wanting to hear his explanation, and that was so whether they were included in the group or not.
As we look at the incident it is important that we recognise that this questioning of Peter was a valid and Scriptural procedure. The Old Testament made it incumbent on God’s people to check out any instance where it appeared that God’s Law had been broken (Deu 13:14), and it was right that no exception be made for Peter. Thus the enquiry is to be seen as having been a necessity, not an example of lack of trust or of love. From that point of view the important issue was not the enquiry, it was the attitude with which it was being conducted.
They ‘contended with him’, ‘making a distinction’ between him and them. The reaction was natural. It was not necessarily belligerent. It was the same way in which Peter would have reacted had he not had the vision that he had. They all wanted to know on what grounds he had behaved as he had by joining with the uncircumcised in their home and eating with them. Why was he ignoring the plain requirements of the Law (as they interpreted them)? They had nothing against him preaching to Gentiles in order to turn them into proselytes, but it was quite another to have close fraternisation with them, and to enter their homes and eat with them, homes where any kind of ‘uncleanness’ may be hidden, and where the food would not necessarily be properly prepared and may have included ‘unclean’ elements.
Yet this very questioning was good, for now they would have to square up to the answers. From these they would then have to determine their own position on the matter, and come to a verdict accordingly. They would either finish up by accepting Peter’s new position and taking it for themselves, or they would harden their hearts and resist God’s truth. (Those who did the latter would later form a circumcision party).
Act 11:2. They that were of the circumcision contended with him, How good an argument soever this may be against the supremacy of St. Peter, it is none against the inspiration of the apostles; for it only proves that some who did not well understand the principles on which they acted, took upon them, without reason, to arraign their conduct; and consequently didnot, in this respect, pay a becoming deference to them. It plainly shews how little deference was paid to any uncircumcised persons, whatever profession they might make of worshipping the God of Israel.
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
Ver. 2. Contended with him ] They should rather have commended him: so hard it is to part with a rooted error: so ordinary it is for faithful ministers to meet with such as will dare to reprehend what they do not comprehend, and precipitate a censure.
2. ] must have come into use later as designating the circumcised generally: in this case all those spoken of would belong to the circumcision. Luke uses it in the sense of the time when he wrote the account.
Act 11:2 . , cf. Jude, Act 11:9 , with dative of the person (Polyb., ii., 22, 11). For similar construction as here see LXX, Eze 20:35-36 , see Grimm-Thayer, sub v. Otherwise in Act 10:20 . , cf. Gal 2:12 ; we can scarcely confine the term here to those mentioned in Act 10:45 (although Dr. Hort takes this view as most probable), but how far there was a section of the Church at Jerusalem who could thus be described at this time it is difficult to say, see Ramsay, St. Paul , p. 44.
they, &c. See note on Act 10:45.
contended = were contending. Greek. diakrino. App-122.
with = against. Greek. pros. App-104.
2.] must have come into use later as designating the circumcised generally: in this case all those spoken of would belong to the circumcision. Luke uses it in the sense of the time when he wrote the account.
Act 11:2. , discussed or contended) i.e. they showed that they had doubts as to that point.
they: Act 10:9, Act 10:45, Act 15:1, Act 15:5, Act 21:20-23, Gal 2:12-14
Reciprocal: Jos 22:12 – the whole Jos 22:22 – Israel 1Sa 17:29 – General Mat 20:11 – they murmured Act 10:28 – that it Col 4:11 – who 1Th 2:16 – Forbidding
2
Act 11:2. When Peter got back to Jerusalem, they of the circumcism, meaning the Jews, had a contention with him.
Act 11:2. When Peter was come up to Jerusalem. For what reason he went thither we are not told. He seems to have gone direct from Csarea. The form of expression is that which would be natural to describe such a journey. See Act 18:22.
They that were of the circumcision. By this is expressed, not simply that they were Jews, but that they had a strong and deep feeling regarding the necessity of circumcision. With the exception of the recent converts, none except Jews were members of the Church of Christ. This expression, however, is one that it would be natural for St. Luke, writing some years afterwards, to use. And indeed now, for the first time, there were within the Church the two strongly-contrasted elements of Jewish and Gentile Christianity. We are exactly at the turn, where the history of the Christian Church passes into its new phase.
Contended with him. There was no judicial charge in the case. The subject, however, was one of serious personal debate: and it occurs to us naturally to remark that this could not have taken place on so serious a religious question, if the power of supreme infallible decision had belonged to St. Peter as the first of the Popes.
See notes one verse 1
Verse 2
They that were of the circumcision; the apostles and brethren, who were Jews.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament