SEV Biblia, Chapter 11:2
Cuando Pedro subi a Jerusaln, contendían contra l los que eran de la circuncisin,
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Acts 11:2
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.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 2. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem , etc.] From Caesarea, after he had stayed some certain days in Corneliuss house; so a journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem is called an ascending from the one to the other, ( Acts 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 f547 , 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 f548 , that Cerinthus, that arch-heretic, was at the head of this contention.
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 1-18 - The imperfect state of human nature strongly appears, when godl persons are displeased even to hear that the word of God has bee received, because their own system has not been attended to. And we ar too apt to despair of doing good to those who yet, when tried, prove very teachable. It is the bane and damage of the church, to shut ou those from it, and from the benefit of the means of grace, who are no in every thing as we are. Peter stated the whole affair. We should a all times bear with the infirmities of our brethren; and instead of taking offence, or answering with warmth, we should explain ou motives, and show the nature of our proceedings. That preaching i certainly right, with which the Holy Ghost is given. While men are very zealous for their own regulations, they should take care that they d not withstand God; and those who love the Lord will glorify him, when made sure that he has given repentance to life to any fellow-sinners Repentance is God's gift; not only his free grace accepts it, but his mighty grace works it in us, grace takes away the heart of stone, an gives us a heart of flesh. The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit.
Greek Textus Receptus
και 2532 CONJ οτε 3753 ADV ανεβη 305 5627 V-2AAI-3S πετρος 4074 N-NSM εις 1519 PREP ιεροσολυμα 2414 N-ASF διεκρινοντο 1252 5710 V-IMI-3P προς 4314 PREP αυτον 846 P-ASM οι 3588 T-NPM εκ 1537 PREP περιτομης 4061 N-GSF
Vincent's NT Word Studies
2. They of the circumcision. See on ch. v. 45.
Robertson's NT Word Studies
11:2 {They that were of the circumcision} (hoi ek peritomes). 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} (diekrinonto). Imperfect middle of the common verb diakrinw, to {separate}. Here to separate oneself apart (dia), to take sides against, to make a cleavage (dia, 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.
