What does Acts 11:2 mean?

Explanation

[Acts 11:2] refers to an incident where the apostle Peter, after returning to Jerusalem, faces criticism from certain Jewish believers, likely those who strictly observe Jewish law, including circumcision.

These individuals are described as "they that were of the circumcision." They took issue with Peter's recent interaction with Gentiles (non-Jews) in the city of Caesarea, particularly his sharing of meals with them, which was a significant social and religious gesture of fellowship.

The deeper meaning of this verse highlights the early church's struggle to understand and define the extent to which Gentile converts would be required to observe Jewish customs and law.

It begins to address the breaking down of barriers between Jews and Gentiles within the early Christian community.

Historical Context

The verse is set in a time shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, when the Christian church was primarily made up of Jewish believers.

Jerusalem was the center of the Jewish faith and the early Christian church.

Circumcision was a critical identity marker for Jews and a requirement set forth by the Mosaic Law.

The question of whether Gentile converts needed to become circumcised and adhere to Jewish law was intensely debated among the first Christians, and Acts 11 details this central conflict within the early church.

Theological Insights

From a theological standpoint, Acts 11:2 reveals the inclusivity of the Gospel message and the tension it created. In traditional Jewish belief, circumcision was non-negotiable, being a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham's descendants.

From a Christian perspective, Peter's vision and subsequent actions (described earlier in Acts 10) signify a new understanding that faith in Jesus Christ, rather than adherence to certain ceremonial laws, is what grants salvation, thus opening the way for Gentiles to join the church.

This reflects on doctrines of grace and the universality of the Christian message.

Practical Applications

The teachings in this verse are pertinent to modern discussions about inclusion and the boundaries of religious community.

It encourages believers to consider how cultural traditions should interface with faith, and how openness and acceptance are fundamental Christian virtues.

The dispute faced by Peter beckons modern Christians to examine their attitudes towards those who are different and to embrace diversity within the body of Christ without compromising core theological tenets.

Cross-References

• Acts 10:28: "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
• Acts 10:45: "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."
• Acts 15:7-9: "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."
• Galatians 2:12-14: "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."

Language Study

Key terms in the original Greek text of this verse include:

• "Circumcision" (περιτομή, peritomē): Referring to the physical act of circumcision which was a sign of the covenant for Jews, but also metaphorically to the community of Jews who were circumcised.
• "Contended" (διακρίνω, diakrinō): It can mean to judge, dispute, or have contention.

In this context, it implies a dispute or an objection raised against Peter.

• "Come up" (ἀναβαίνω, anabainō): To go up, ascend, here referring to Peter's travel to Jerusalem, which is situated on higher ground than Caesarea.

Cultural and Religious Comparisons

The early church's debates over the role of circumcision and the Mosaic Law have parallels in other religious traditions in which the question of adherence to traditional law versus a more universalistic approach is an issue.

For example, the transition from Vedic religion to Buddhism in ancient India involved significant shifts in religious practice and inclusivity.

Buddhism advocated that salvation could be attained by anyone, irrespective of caste, which contrasted with the more traditionalist and legalistic approaches of Brahmanism.

Scientific Perspectives

Modern science affirms that there are no significant biological differences between Jews and Gentiles that would affect their inclusion in any religious or social group.

Genetic studies, for example, have supported the idea that physical distinctions are minimal; thus, from a scientific standpoint, the necessity for a sign like circumcision as a distinguishing feature is not supported.

These insights underscore that the divisions dealt with in Acts 11 are predominantly cultural and religious rather than biological.

Commentaries

Commentators offer various insights on Acts 11:2.

Many agree that it highlights a pivotal moment in the early church, showing the transition from Christianity being a sect of Judaism to becoming a universal faith.

Matthew Henry comments on the prejudice that might have influenced the circumcision group's contention with Peter.

John Calvin stresses the necessity of overcoming cultural barriers for the sake of unity in the church.

Modern scholars may emphasize the ecumenical lessons drawn from this text and its implications for interfaith dialogue and inclusivity within the Christian community today.