Acts 11:2

Act 11:2. Διεκρίνοντο, discussed or contended) i.e. they showed that they had doubts as to that point.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 11:2 . διεκρίνοντο , 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 . οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς , 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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

they . . . of the circumcision--not the Jewish Christians generally, for here there were no other, but such as, from their jealousy for "the middle wall of partition" which circumcision raised between Jew and Gentile, were afterwards known as "they of the circumcision." They doubtless embraced apostles as well as others.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 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.

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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(2) They that were of the circumcision contended with him.—The conversion of the Gentiles at Cæsarea 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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, Act 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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Peter’s so-called authority. This claim for Peter is not only opposed to this place, but to every part of the New Testament.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Disputed against him. St. Epiphanius makes Cerintbus, who was the next heresiarch to Simon Magus, the author of this dispute. He likewise says it was he, who excited the Jews against St. Paul, (Acts xxi.) and that the first Council of Jerusalem was convened to condemn him. (St. Epiphanius, hæres. 28. chap. ii)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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, οι εκ περιτομης, 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!

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They that were of the circumcision. At first sight this phrase, which was natural enough in Act_10:45, seems an unnatural one in the then condition of the Church, when all the members of it were "of the circumcision," and there were no Gentile converts at all. But the explanation of it is to be found in the circumstance of St. Luke himself being a Gentile; perhaps also, as Alford suggests, in his use of language suited to the time when he wrote. It is an indication, too, of the purpose of St. Luke in writing his history, viz. to chronicle the progress of Gentile Christianity. Peter, having completed his rounds, (Act_9:32) returned to Jerusalem, which was still the abode of the apostles. He was, no doubt, anxious to commune with his brother apostles upon the momentous matter of the Gentile converts; but he was at once attacked by the bigotry of the zealous Jews.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

See notes one verse 1

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

2. διεκρίνοντο πρὸς αὐτόν, they contended with him. The verb is the same which is used (Act 10:20), with a negative, μηδὲν διακρινόμενος, nothing doubting, and presently in this chapter (Act 11:12) μηδὲν διακρίναντα making no difference. The contention of these opponents of Peter’s conduct 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 felt it their duty (Act 10:28) to behave towards Cornelius and such as he before they became Christians, so would the Judaizing feeling have prompted the Jewish Christians 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.

οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς, 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.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2.] οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς 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.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They of the circumcision. See on ch. Act 5:45.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.