SEV Biblia, Chapter 2:11
¶ Pero viniendo Pedro a Antioquía, le resistí en la cara, porque era de condenar.
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Galatians 2:11
Verse 11. When Peter was come to Antioch] There has been a controversy whether petrov, Peter, here should not be read khfav, Kephas; and whether this Kephas was not a different person from Peter the apostle. This controversy has lasted more than 1500 years, and is not yet settled. Instead of petrov, Peter, ABCH, several others of good note, with the Syriac, Erpenian, Coptic, Sahidic, AEthiopic, Armenian, later Syriac in the margin, Vulgate, and several of the Greek fathers, read khfav. But whichsoever of these readings we adopt, the controversy is the same; for the great question is, whether this Peter or Kephas, no matter which name we adopt, be the same with Peter the apostle? I shall not introduce the arguments pro and con, which may be all seen in Calmet's dissertation on the subject, but just mention the side where the strength of the evidence appears to lie.
That Peter the apostle is meant, the most sober and correct writers of antiquity maintain; and though some of the Catholic writers have fixed the whole that is here reprehensible on one Kephas, one of the seventy disciples, yet the most learned of their writers and of their popes, believe that St. Peter is meant. Some apparently plausible arguments support the contrary opinion, but they are of no weight when compared with those on the opposite side.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch , etc..] The Alexandrian copy, and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, instead of Peter, read Cephas, who, by some ancient writers, is said to be not Peter the Apostle, named Cephas by Christ, but one of the seventy disciples. So Clemens says, that Cephas, of whom Paul speaks, that when he came to Antioch he withstood him to his face, was one of the seventy disciples who had the same name with Peter the Apostle: and Jerom says that there were some who were of opinion, that Cephas, of whom Paul writes that he withstood him to his face, was not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples called by that name: but without any manner of foundation; for the series of the discourse, and the connection of the words, most clearly show, that that same Cephas, or Peter, one of the twelve disciples mentioned, ( Galatians 2:9), with James and John, as pillars, is here meant. Our apostle first takes notice of a visit he made him, three years after his conversion, ( Galatians 1:18), when his stay with him was but fifteen days, and, for what appears, there was then an entire harmony between them; fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem again, and communicated his Gospel to Peter, and the rest, when they also were perfectly agreed; but now at Antioch there was a dissension between them, which is here related. However, the Papists greedily catch at this, to secure the infallibility of the bishops of Rome, who pretend to be the successors of Peter, lest, should the apostle appear blameworthy, and to be reproved and opposed, they could not, with any grace, assume a superior character to his: but that Peter the Apostle is here designed is so manifest, that some of their best writers are obliged to own it, and give up the other as a mere conceit. When Peter came to Antioch is not certain; some have thought it was before the council at Jerusalem concerning the necessity of circumcision to salvation, because it is thought that after the decree of that council Peter would never have behaved in such a manner as there related; though it should be observed, that that decree did not concern the Jews, and their freedom from the observance of the law, only the Gentiles; so that Peter and other Jews might, as it is certain they did, notwithstanding that, retain the rites and ceremonies of the law of Moses; and according to the series of things, and the order of the account, it seems to be after that council, when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, and with others continued there for some time, during which time Peter came thither; (see Acts 15:30,35) and the following contention happened, I withstood him to the face : not in show, and outward appearance only, as some of the ancients have thought, as if this was an artifice of the apostle's, that the Jews, having an opportunity of hearing what might be said in favour of eating with the Gentiles, might be convinced of the propriety of it, and not be offended with it: but this is to make the apostle guilty of the evil he charges Peter with, namely, dissimulation; no, the opposition was real, and in all faithfulness and integrity; he did not go about as a tale bearer, whisperer, and backbiter, but reproved him to his face, freely spoke his mind to him, boldly resisted him, honestly endeavoured to convince him of his mistake, and to put a stop to his conduct; though he did not withstand him as an enemy, or use him with rudeness and ill manners; or as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, and false teachers resist the truth; but as a friend and an apostle, and in an amicable manner, and yet with all uprightness: his reason for it was, because he was to be blamed ; some read it, was blamed, or condemned, either by others, by the Jews, for his going into Cornelius's house formerly; but what has this to do with the present case? or by those who lately came from James to Antioch, for his eating with the Gentiles there; yet this could be no reason for the apostle's withstanding him, but rather a reason why he should stand by him; or he was condemned by himself, self-condemned, acting contrary to the sentiments of his mind, and what he had declared in the council at Jerusalem; though it is best to render the word, to be blamed, which shows that the apostle did not oppose him for opposition sake, rashly, and without any foundation; there was a just reason for it, he had done that which was culpable, and for which he was blameworthy; and what that was is mentioned in the next verse.
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 11-14 - Notwithstanding Peter's character, yet, when Paul saw him acting so a to hurt the truth of the gospel and the peace of the church, he was no afraid to reprove him. When he saw that Peter and the others did no live up to that principle which the gospel taught, and which the professed, namely, That by the death of Christ the partition wal between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the la of Moses was no longer in force; as Peter's offence was public, he publicly reproved him. There is a very great difference between the prudence of St. Paul, who bore with, and used for a time, the ceremonies of the law as not sinful, and the timid conduct of St Peter, who, by withdrawing from the Gentiles, led others to think tha these ceremonies were necessary.
Greek Textus Receptus
οτε 3753 δε 1161 ηλθεν 2064 5627 πετρος 4074 εις 1519 αντιοχειαν 490 κατα 2596 προσωπον 4383 αυτω 846 αντεστην 436 5627 οτι 3754 κατεγνωσμενος 2607 5772 ην 2258 5713
Vincent's NT Word Studies
11. To the face (kata proswpon). As Acts iii. 13. The meaning is expressed in the familiar phrase faced him down. It is, however, rarely as strong as this in N.T. Rather before the face, or in the face of, meaning simply in the sight or presence of (Luke ii. 31), or according to appearance (2 Cor. i. 7). The explanation that Paul withstood Peter only in appearance or semblance (so Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and other Fathers) is one of the curiosities of exegesis, and was probably adopted out of misplaced consideration for the prestige of Peter.
He was to be blamed (kategnwsmenov hn). A.V. is wrong. Rev.
correctly, he stood condemned. Not by the body of Christians at Antioch; rather his act was its own condemnation.
Robertson's NT Word Studies
2:11 {I resisted him to the face} (kata proswpon autwi antesten). Second aorist active indicative (intransitive) of anqistemi. "I stood against him face to face." In Jerusalem Paul faced Peter as his equal in rank and sphere of work. In Antioch he looked him in the eye as his superior in character and courage. {Because he stood condemned} (hoti kategnwsmenos en). Periphrastic past perfect passive of kataginoskw, old verb to know against, to find fault with. In N.T. only here and #1Jo 3:20f.
