Skip to content
mannafest.faith

Acts 11:2

in Acts 11

So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers took issue with him

BSB

The same verse in ASV and KJV ▾

ASV

And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

KJV

And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

This verse in Acts 11

Commentary

12 notes on this verse

A commentator

Theophylact of Ohrid

Commentary on Acts · Written before 1107.

You see what zeal they had concerning the law. They were not ashamed before Peter's dignity, nor the miracles that had taken place, nor that wonderful preparation that had been made for the reception of the word, but began to dispute about such trifles. Those …

This site's exposition

the Gentiles also had received

on Acts 11:1-3

On Peter's arrival the circumcised believers took issue with him, charging, You visited uncircumcised men and ate with them. The charge concerns the shared table, since by the custom of the day a Jew who ate with Gentiles shared their ritual uncleanness.

This site's exposition

the circumcised believers took issue with him

Luke names Peter's critics as the circumcised believers, marked by the very sign the dispute over the Gentiles turns on. The same group stood amazed at Caesarea in 10:45. At 15:5 believers from the party of the Pharisees raise it again in Jerusalem.

The record, by era

The Church Fathers4 voices

A commentator

Cassiodorus

Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles · Written before 585.

proposed

"And when he was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him." When Peter was come up to Jerusalem, faithful Jews contended with him as to why he had gone in to men uncircumcised and had eaten with them. But …

A commentator

Oecumenius

Commentary on Acts · Written before 550.

proposed

Peter showed in his defense that he had by no means been the cause, but God everywhere. For he said, he himself set me in the excess of mind, he himself pointed out the sheet, and I indeed even contradicted; again the same he himself …

A commentator

John Chrysostom

Homily on Acts 24 · Written before 407.

proposed

"And the Apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." After such great things, "they of the circumcision contended:" not the Apostles; God forbid. It means, they took no small offence. And see what they allege. They do not say, Why didst thou preach? but, Why didst thou eat with them? But Peter, not stopping to notice this frigid objection - for frigid indeed it is - takes his stand on that great argument, If they had the Spirit Itself given them, how could one refuse to give them the baptism?

A commentator

John Chrysostom

Homily on Acts 24 · Written before 407.

proposed

Do you remark how they were not kindly disposed towards him? Saying, "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." Do you note what zeal they had for the Law? Not Peter's authority abashed them, not the signs which had taken place, not the success achieved, what a thing it was, the Gentiles having "received the word:" but they contended about those petty things. For if none of those signs had taken place, was not the success itself enough?

The Puritans and the Awakening1 voice

And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem,....
4 more voices on this verse

The Puritans and the Awakening1 voice

A commentator

Matthew Henry

1662–1714

Commentary on the Whole Bible (1710)

proposed

How much it is the bane and damage of the church, to monopolize it, and to exclude those from it, and from the benefit of the means of grace, that are not in every thing as we are.

The Nineteenth Century3 voices

A commentator

Adam Clarke

1762–1832

Commentary on the Bible · Written before 1832.

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.

A commentator

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

1802–1910

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)

proposed

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.

quarantine:debris (2026-07-29) — starts-lowercase

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.

The words behind it

12 Greek words

Every Greek word of this verse in the order it stands, with what it means and the door to its own study. The last column counts the times a word stands in the whole Bible: the rarer the word, the more the places it appears belong together.

A shaded row is a word that stands 400 times or fewer in the Bible.

The walk

8 stops

Each card is a verse this one points to, and under it the verses that one points to in turn. Where several paths arrive at the same place, that place is listed first: the text keeps returning to it.

  • Through

    Acts 15:1

    Then some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

    it leads to

    • Galatians 5:6

      For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. All that matters is faith, expressed through love.

    • Acts 15:5

      But some believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and declared, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.”

    • Colossians 2:8

      See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ.

    • 1 Corinthians 7:18–19

      Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man still uncircumcised when called? He should not be circumcised.

    • Galatians 2:11–14

      When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned.

  • Through

    Acts 10:45

    All the circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.

    it leads to

    • Acts 2:38

      Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    • Acts 10:23

      So Peter invited them in as his guests. And the next day he got ready and went with them, accompanied by some of the brothers from Joppa.

    • Galatians 3:13–14

      Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”

Where this verse is studied

About Acts

This page draws on 12 works. Open the list of works

This page draws on Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible; Albert Barnes, Notes on Acts; Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments (1832-1869); Cassiodorus, Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles; J. A. Alexander, The Acts of the Apostles Explained; Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; John Chrysostom, Homily on Acts 24; John Gill, Exposition of the New Testament; John Gill, Exposition of the New Testament (1746-1748); Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible; Oecumenius, Commentary on Acts and Theophylact of Ohrid, Commentary on Acts.