Acts 11:2

To Jerusalem. Which was still the headquarters (see on ch. 8:14).

Of the circumcision. There is no indication that this expression describes a particular class of Jewish Christians, for all Christians were either Jews or proselytes at the time these events occurred. Therefore the protest must have come from the whole church. However, Luke’s narrative was written at a later time, when those who were “of the circumcision” had become a distinct party, and when their influence was working a definite division in the Christian congregations. Therefore Luke’s employment of the expression must be taken as significant. See on v. 3.

Those who had been born Jews, and who had neither heard of Peter’s vision nor seen the gift of the Holy Ghost poured out upon Cornelius and his household, are to be pardoned if their scruples caused them to challenge Peter’s conduct. When these had heard his story they were satisfied (see v. 18), but many Jewish Christians elsewhere continued to make this a matter of contention (see Acts 15:1; Gal. 2:11-14).

Contended. Gr. diakrino, “to separate,” “to doubt,” “to hesitate”; “to make a difference,” “to discriminate”; “to oppose,” “to contend with” (see chs. 10:20; 11:12; 15:9). Here it means that they separated themselves from Peter in a hostile sense, opposed him, disputed with him. The contenders insisted that the difference between Jew and Gentile should still be maintained. That is, that Christians should hold fellowship only with those who had become proselytes to Judaism and gave due obedience to the ritual law. Cornelius had not been received into the fellowship of the Jews in Caesarea (see ch. 10:2), and the active Judaizing sentiment in the church would tend to prevent his being accepted into the Christian community. The prejudice that had grown up among the Jews through generations of ceremonial observance makes this comprehensible. An entire nation is not brought to a radical change of feeling in a short period of time.

Incidentally, the fact that Peter could be militantly challenged demonstrates that he was not considered the head of the church, nor the “chief of the apostles,” and certainly not infallible.