A.T. Robertson Commentary Acts 11

In Judea (κατα την Ιουδαιαν). Throughout Judea (probably all Palestine), distributive use of κατα. The news from Casearea spread like wildfire among the Jewish Christians. The case of the Samaritans was different, for they were half Jews, though disliked. But here were real Romans even if with Jewish affinities.

Had received (εδεξαντο). First aorist middle indicative. The English idiom requires "had" received, the Greek has simply "received."

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 (Acts 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 (Luke 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.

Began (αρξαμενος). Not pleonastic here, but graphically showing how Peter began at the beginning and gave the full story of God's dealings with him in Joppa and Caesarea.

Expounded (εξετιθετο). Imperfect middle of εκτιθημ, to set forth, old verb, but in the N.T. only in Acts (7:21; 11:4; 18:26; 28:23), a deliberate and detailed narrative "in order" (καθεξης). Old word for in succession. In the N.T. only in Lu 1:2; 8:1; Acts 3:24; 11:14; 18:23. Luke evidently considered this defence of Peter important and he preserves the marks of authenticity. It came originally from Peter himself (verses 5,6,15,16). "The case of Cornelius was a test case of primary importance" (Page), "the first great difficulty of the early Church." Part of the story Luke gives three times (10:3-6,30-32; 11:13f.). See the discussion chapter 10 for details given here.

Let down (καθιεμενην). Here agreeing with the "sheet" (οθονην, feminine), not with "vessel" (σκευος, neuter) as in 10:11.

Even unto me (αχρ εμου). Vivid detail added here by Peter.