Act 11:2-3 | RWP | e4.org | They that were of the circumcision ( ο εκ περιτομης ). Literally, those of circumcision (on the side of circumcision, of the circumcision party). The phrase in is confined to the six brethren with Peter in Caesarea ( ). 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 the phrase has the narrower sense of the Judaizing or Pharisaic wing of the disciples ( ) 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 , but are not referred to in verse . Apparently they are in contrast with the circumcision party in the church. Contended ( διεκρινοντο ). Imperfect middle of the common verb διακρινω , to separate . Here to separate oneself apart ( δια ), to take sides against, to make a cleavage ( δια , two, in two) as in . 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.

‏ Acts 11:2-3

They that were of the circumcision ( ο εκ περιτομης ). 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 ( διεκρινοντο ). Imperfect middle of the common verb διακρινω, to

separate. Here to separate oneself apart ( δια ), to take sides against, to make a cleavage ( δια, 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.

Thou wentest in ( εισηλθες ). Direct form, but Westcott and Hort have it εισηλθεν (he went in), indirect form. So with συνεφαγες (didst eat) and συνεφαγεν (did eat). The direct is more vivid.

Men uncircumcised ( ανδρας ακροβυστιαν εχοντας ). "Men having uncircumcision." It is a contemptuous expression. They did not object to Peter's preaching to the Gentiles, but to his going into the house of Cornelius and eating with them, violating his supposed obligations as a Jew (Hackett). It was the same complaint in principle that the Pharisees had made against Jesus when he ate with publicans and sinners (Lu 15:12). The Jews had not merely the Mosaic regulations about clean and unclean food, but also the fact that at a Gentile table some of the meat may have been an idol sacrifice. And Peter himself had similar scruples when the vision came to him at Joppa and when he entered the house of Cornelius in Caesarea 10:28). Peter had been led beyond the circumcision party.