When Cephas came to Antioch
The name "Cephas" is the Aramaic equivalent of "Peter," meaning "rock." This highlights Peter's foundational role in the early church, as designated by Christ Himself (John 1:42). Antioch was a significant center for early Christianity, known for its diverse congregation of Jews and Gentiles. The mention of Antioch underscores the importance of this city as a hub for missionary activity and a melting pot of cultural and religious backgrounds. This setting is crucial for understanding the conflict, as it was a place where Jewish and Gentile believers interacted closely.

I opposed him to his face
The Greek word for "opposed" is "anthistemi," which means to stand against or resist. This indicates a direct and personal confrontation, emphasizing the seriousness of the issue at hand. Paul's boldness in confronting Peter, a leading apostle, demonstrates the gravity of maintaining the truth of the Gospel. The phrase "to his face" suggests a face-to-face encounter, highlighting the importance of addressing conflicts directly and honestly within the Christian community.

because he stood to be condemned
The phrase "stood to be condemned" comes from the Greek "kataginosko," meaning to find fault or blame. This implies that Peter's actions were not just a personal failing but had broader implications for the integrity of the Gospel message. Peter's behavior, influenced by fear of the circumcision group, risked undermining the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This serves as a reminder of the constant vigilance required to preserve the purity of the Gospel against any form of legalism or hypocrisy.

(11-14) The next phase in this question was at Antioch. On his coming thither Peter was guilty of a great inconsistency. He began by eating freely with the Gentile converts, but the arrival of a party of the stricter Jews from Jerusalem was enough to make him alter his practice. He gradually withdrew and held aloof, and a number of others, including even Barnabas, followed his example. This conduct of his I openly reproved, asking him why it was that at one moment he himself did not hesitate to adopt the custom of the Gentiles, while at another he insisted upon their conforming to those of the Jews.

(11) When Peter . . .--The true reading here is undoubtedly Cephas. The visit alluded to probably took place soon after the return of Paul and Barnabas, in the interval described in Acts 15:35, shortly before the separation of these two Apostles and the departure of St. Paul on his second missionary journey.

Because he was to be blamed.--The Greek here is simply, because he was condemned. The act carried with it its own condemnation.

The blame thus imputed to St. Peter was a subject of much controversy in antiquity. It was made a ground of accusation against both Apostles. The Ebionites--as represented in the well known heretical work, the Clementine Homilies--charged St. Paul with hostility to the faith, asserting that by calling Peter "condemned" he was really accusing "God who revealed Christ in him." On the other hand, Marcion, the Gnostic, saw in the incident a proof of the antagonism between Judaism and Christianity (as he understood it), represented by their several champions. The heathen critic Porphyry attacked both Apostles alike, the one for error, the other for forwardness in rebuking that error, and points to the whole scene as one of ecclesiastical wrangling.

The unfortunate result of these criticisms was that they led to attempts, on the part of the orthodox writers, to explain away the simple meaning of the narrative. Clement of Alexandria maintained that the Cephas here mentioned was not the Apostle St. Peter, but an inferior person, one of the seventy disciples. A more popular theory was that which was started by Origen, elaborated by Chrysostom, and defended with great vehemence by Jerome in a controversy with Augustine. This theory was that the two Apostles had arranged the scene beforehand between themselves, and acted it out for the edification of the Judaisers. St. Paul was to represent the view sanctioned by the Church, and St. Peter was to give an eminent example of submission. This view, though it held its ground for two centuries, was finally put down by the straightforwardness and good sense of St. Augustine.

The true explanation of the incident is to be found in the character of St. Peter--at once generously impulsive and timidly sensitive to the opinion of others. An inconsistency very similar to this appears in his ardent confession, followed by the betrayal of his Master (Mark 14:29; Mark 14:66 et seq.). It had been seen at an earlier date in his attempt to walk upon the water (Matthew 14:28-33); and is, indeed, one of the features in his character most conspicuous in the Gospels. A little more attention to this would have saved many doctrinaire objections to the narrative of the Acts, where the inconsistency, which is really one of character, is treated as if it stood in the way of the objective truth of the events. . . .

Verse 11. - In the narrative which the apostle next proceeds to give, several points, we may suppose, were definitely meant by him to be intimated to his readers. Thus to those Gentile Galatians who were wavering in their attachment to himself and to the gospel which he had preached to them, he shows his claim to their firm affectionate adherence, on the ground of the steadfastness with which, as before at Jerusalem so now afresh in Antioch, he had successfully asserted their rights and their equal standing with Jewish believers, when these were assailed by "certain come from James." In contrast with his own unflinching championship of their cause, were here seen vacillation and inconsistency on the part of "Cephas;" were, then, any justified in exalting those "pillars, James and Cephas," as certain were disposed to do, for the sake of disparaging him? This experience at Antioch should lead them to regard with suspicion Jewish or Philo-Judaic brethren, who were setting themselves to tamper with the truth of the gospel. Crooked conduct was sure to accompany such darkening of the truth, as on that occasion was most palpably evinced in the case of even Barnabas, and was in open encounter before the whole Church exposed and rebuked. And, especially, there was the grand principle that the Law of Moses was for the Christian believer annihilated through the crucifixion of Christ; which principle he had then held aloft in the view of the Church, and here takes occasion to enlarge upon, because it was so directly relevant and helpful in respect to the trouble now springing up in Galatia. But when Peter was come to Antioch (ὅτε δὲ η΅λθε Κηφᾶς [Receptus, Πέτρος] εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν); but when Cephas came to Antioch. The reading Κηφᾶς for Πέτρος is generally accepted. The time at which this incident took place is in a measure determined, on the one side, by its being to all appearance after the visit to Jerusalem which has been previously spoken of, and, on the other, by the reference to Barnabas in ver. 13; that is, we are naturally led to assign it to that time of Paul's, and Barnabas's united labours at Antioch which is briefly indicated in Acts 15:35. It can hardly have occurred subsequently to the rupture between them which St. Luke immediately after describes. The manner in which St. Peter's coming to Antioch is introduced seems to betoken that his coming thither was not felt to have been at all an extraordinary circumstance. It is open to us, and indeed obvious, to conjecture that the visit was made in the course of one of those journeyings of St. Peter "throughout all parts," of which another, taking place fourteen years or more previously, is mentioned in Acts 9:33. As the "apostle of the circumcision," he was, we may reasonably suppose, in the habit of traversing, in company often with his wife (1 Corinthians 9:5), the whole of those districts of Palestine which were largely inhabited by Jews, and extending as far as Antioch itself, in the exercise of apostolic supervision over the Jewish converts. Quite supposably, this was not his first visit to this city. The lengthened continuance of his stay, which may be inferred from ver. 12, is thus explained. It may be assumed that it was this exercise of apostolic superintendence that gave rise to the tradition, which gained early acceptance in the Church (Eusebius, ' Hist. Eccl.,' 3:36), that Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch. His presence there now, while St. Paul was also there, found, probably, its analogy, twelve or fourteen years later, in the simultaneous presence of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome; St.. Peter being there also, we may suppose, in the discharge of his office as apostle of the circumcision. I withstood him to the face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην). I seized an opportunity at a meeting of the brethren (ver. 14) of publicly confronting him as an adversary. It seems almost suggested that their spheres of work at Antioch, which was a very large city, were so far not identical that they were not commonly to be seen together. The verb ἀντέστην, "set myself to oppose him," expressing deter mined oppugnancy (2 Timothy 3:8; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:9), strikes us the more, as coming so soon after the "gave us the right hands of fellowship of ver. 7. His adopting of this mode of recalling his straying brother instead of dealing with him in a more private manner, is indicated with an evidently intended pointedness. His course of proceeding was both justified and required by the public nature of St. Peter's offence, and by the necessity of promptly exposing and beating back the aggressions which Israelitish bigotry was always so ready to make upon the perfectly equal footing possessed by all believers, by virtue simply of their relation to Christ. Because he was to be blamed (ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος η΅ν); because he stood condemned. The perfect passive verb is commonly felt to point, not so much to the censures of bystanders, as to the glaring wrongness of his conduct viewed in itself (comp. John 3:18; Romans 14:23). The rendering to be blamed, correct so far as it reaches, is inadequate in expressing the sense which St. Paul had of the gravity of St. Peter's offence. It is interesting to note the clear reference to this verse made in the second century by the Ebionite author of the ' Clementine Homilies,' who (Bishop Lightfoot observes, 'Galatians,' p. 61), writing in a spirit of bitter hostility to St. Paul, who is covertly attacked in the person of Simon Magus, represents St. Peter as addressing Simon thus: "Thou hast confronted and withstood me (ἐναντίος ἀνθέστηκάς μοι). If thou hadst not been an adversary, thou wouldest not have calumniated and reviled my preaching If thou callest me condemned (κατεγνωσμένον), thou accusest God who revealed Christ to me" ('Hom.,' 17:19). Not only is this a testimony to the authenticity of.. the Epistle; it betokens also the sore feeling which this narrative of St. Paul's and the manner of its diction left behind in the minds of a certain section of Jewish Christians.

Parallel Commentaries ...


When
Ὅτε (Hote)
Adverb
Strong's 3753: When, at which time. From hos and te; at which too, i.e. When.

Cephas
Κηφᾶς (Kēphas)
Noun - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 2786: Of Chaldee origin; the Rock; Cephas, a surname of Peter.

came
ἦλθεν (ēlthen)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 2064: To come, go.

to
εἰς (eis)
Preposition
Strong's 1519: A primary preposition; to or into, of place, time, or purpose; also in adverbial phrases.

Antioch,
Ἀντιόχειαν (Antiocheian)
Noun - Accusative Feminine Singular
Strong's 490: From Antiochus; Antiochia, a place in Syria.

however,
δὲ (de)
Conjunction
Strong's 1161: A primary particle; but, and, etc.

I opposed [him]
ἀντέστην (antestēn)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 1st Person Singular
Strong's 436: To set against; I withstand, resist, oppose. From anti and histemi; to stand against, i.e. Oppose.

to
κατὰ (kata)
Preposition
Strong's 2596: A primary particle; down, in varied relations (genitive, dative or accusative) with which it is joined).

his
αὐτῷ (autō)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Dative Masculine 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 846: He, she, it, they, them, same. From the particle au; the reflexive pronoun self, used of the third person, and of the other persons.

face,
πρόσωπον (prosōpon)
Noun - Accusative Neuter Singular
Strong's 4383: From pros and ops; the front, i.e. The countenance, aspect, appearance, surface; by implication, presence, person.

because
ὅτι (hoti)
Conjunction
Strong's 3754: Neuter of hostis as conjunction; demonstrative, that; causative, because.

he stood
ἦν (ēn)
Verb - Imperfect Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 1510: I am, exist. The first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist.

to be condemned.
κατεγνωσμένος (kategnōsmenos)
Verb - Perfect Participle Middle or Passive - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 2607: To condemn, blame. From kata and ginosko; to note against, i.e. Find fault with.


Galatians 2:11 NIV
Galatians 2:11 NLT
Galatians 2:11 ESV
Galatians 2:11 NASB
Galatians 2:11 KJV

Galatians 2:11 BibleApps.com
Galatians 2:11 Biblia Paralela
Galatians 2:11 Chinese Bible
Galatians 2:11 French Bible
Galatians 2:11 Catholic Bible

NT Letters: Galatians 2:11 But when Peter came to Antioch (Gal. Ga)