Acts 11 3

Acts 11:3 kjv

Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Acts 11:3 nkjv

saying, "You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!"

Acts 11:3 niv

and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them."

Acts 11:3 esv

"You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them."

Acts 11:3 nlt

"You entered the home of Gentiles and even ate with them!" they said.

Acts 11 verses

Acts 11 3 Meaning

Acts 11:3 records the sharp challenge Peter faced from Jewish believers in Jerusalem, specifically those of "the circumcision party." They criticized him for breaking long-held Jewish purity laws and customs by entering the house of uncircumcised Gentiles and sharing a meal with them. This verse highlights the deep-seated prejudice and the profound cultural and religious barriers that the early church had to confront as the Gospel expanded beyond its Jewish roots. It marks a critical moment where Jewish-Christian understanding of God's salvific plan began to truly broaden to include all nations, challenging the established norms and forcing a re-evaluation of the Mosaic Law's application.

Acts 11 3 Context

Acts chapter 11 continues the narrative from chapter 10, where Peter received a vision declaring all foods clean and was then led by the Spirit to the house of Cornelius, a Gentile centurion. Against established Jewish customs that forbade intimate association and dining with Gentiles, Peter entered Cornelius's house, preached the Gospel, and witnessed the Holy Spirit descend upon Cornelius and his household, just as it had upon the Jewish believers at Pentecost. This groundbreaking event profoundly impacted Peter. Verse 3 occurs as Peter returns to Jerusalem and is immediately confronted by "those of the circumcision party," a group of Jewish believers zealous for the Mosaic Law and the necessity of circumcision for salvation and fellowship. This confrontation reflects the core tension within the early church regarding the inclusion of Gentiles and the interpretation of the Mosaic Law in light of Christ's new covenant. The Jewish context valued ritual purity, and associating closely with uncircumcised Gentiles was considered defiling.

Acts 11 3 Word analysis

• those of the circumcision party (Greek: hoi ek peritomēs - οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς): Literally "those out of circumcision." This phrase identifies a specific faction within the early Christian community in Jerusalem. They were Jewish believers who insisted that Gentile converts must be circumcised and adhere to the Mosaic Law (cf. Acts 15:1, 5; Gal 2:12). This group reflects a legalistic viewpoint rooted in their strong Jewish identity and understanding of the covenant with Abraham. They represented a conservative opposition to the inclusion of Gentiles on the basis of faith alone.
• contended (Greek: diekrinonto - διεκρίνοντο): From diakrino, meaning "to judge through," "to separate thoroughly," "to dispute," "to quarrel," "to question, to doubt." This verb suggests a strong, critical, and disputatious challenge rather than a mere question. It implies that they were finding fault and expressing strong opposition or disapproval. This wasn't a casual inquiry but a heated accusation.
• with him (Greek: pros auton - πρὸς αὐτόν): Indicates direct confrontation.
• saying (Greek: legontes - λέγοντες): Present participle, indicating ongoing speech or the nature of their contention.
• You went (Greek: Eisēlthes - Εἰσῆλθες): Second person singular aorist indicative, "You entered." The implication is that Peter transgressed a boundary by entering the home, seen as ritually impure ground.
• to uncircumcised men (Greek: pros andras akrobystian echontas - πρὸς ἄνδρας ἀκροβυστίαν ἔχοντας): "To men having a foreskin." This direct, explicit description of the Gentiles (referring to their lack of circumcision) emphasizes their "unclean" status from the Jewish perspective and the specific violation committed by Peter in their eyes. For many Jews, circumcision was the sign of covenant membership, and its absence signified exclusion from God's people and covenant promises.
• and ate (Greek: kai synephages - καὶ συνέφαγες): From synephagon, "to eat together." This carries significant weight. Sharing a meal implies intimacy, fellowship, and a complete disregard for traditional dietary laws and purity codes which would be severely breached by eating with "unclean" Gentiles. Such an act was highly scandalous and ritually defiling to the Jewish observers, particularly those zealous for the Law.

Acts 11 3 Bonus section

The intense reaction in Acts 11:3 underlines the formidable cultural and religious barriers that God Himself had to actively dismantle in the early Christian movement. Jewish believers had inherited centuries of separation and unique identity tied to the Mosaic Law and physical distinctives. God's choice to first prepare Peter through the vision (Acts 10), then orchestrate the encounter with Cornelius, and finally grant the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles before circumcision or ritualistic observance, was a strategic, undeniable act. This demonstrated divine affirmation of Gentile inclusion, not as second-class citizens or proselytes, but as full heirs alongside Jewish believers by grace through faith. The criticism of "eating with Gentiles" spoke volumes about the strict social distance maintained. The Holy Spirit's visible presence among Cornelius's household provided Peter with irrefutable proof, transforming an unthinkable act (by Jewish standards) into a divine imperative.

Acts 11 3 Commentary

Acts 11:3 is a concise encapsulation of the early church's internal conflict and one of its greatest challenges: how to reconcile the particularity of God's covenant with Israel with the universal offer of salvation through Jesus Christ. "The circumcision party" voiced the deep-seated theological and cultural norms of their Jewish heritage. For centuries, physical circumcision and adherence to the Law had distinguished Israel. Sharing meals with Gentiles was a direct violation of customs designed to maintain ritual purity and separation. Their "contention" reveals a struggle rooted not just in cultural preference but in a theological framework that had yet to fully grasp the radical inclusivity of the new covenant in Christ.

Peter's actions, Spirit-led and divinely commanded, directly contradicted these deeply held beliefs. His experience with Cornelius proved that God's plan extended beyond ethnic and ritual boundaries, bringing salvation to Gentiles through faith alone, confirmed by the indwelling Holy Spirit. The accusation "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them" succinctly expresses the heart of the complaint: Peter crossed a forbidden boundary of both physical space and fellowship, becoming "defiled" by association and breaking deeply ingrained customs. This moment was crucial for Peter to articulate his defense (Acts 11:4-18), laying the groundwork for the apostolic decision that Gentiles do not need to become Jews to follow Jesus (Acts 15).

Examples:

• A traditional family struggling to accept a non-traditional spouse of a loved one because of cultural differences.
• Religious communities grappling with adapting long-held practices to be inclusive of new members from diverse backgrounds.