the Week of Proper 20 / Ordinary 25
Click here to join the effort!
Read the Bible
THE MESSAGE
Galatians 2:11
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- AmericanEncyclopedias:
- InternationalDevotionals:
- EveryParallel Translations
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
But Pete messed up real bad when he came up to Antioch. I confronted him face to face like a man.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I made a protest against him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to [the] face, because he was to be condemned:
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.
But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be condemned.
Now when Peter visited Antioch, I remonstrated with him to his face, because he had incurred just censure.
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was to be blamed.
But wha Peter was come to Antioche, I withstode him in ye face: for he was worthy to be blamed.
But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, for he was to be blamed.
Now when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him face to face [about his conduct there], because he stood condemned [by his own actions].
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
And when Peter was come to Antioche I withstode him in the face for he was worthy to be blamed.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
And when Peter came to Antioch, to the face I stood up against him, because he was blameworthy,
When Peter came to Antioch, I challenged him to his face, because he was wrong.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.
When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned.
When Peter came to Antioch, I told him face to face that he was wrong.
Furthermore, when Kefa came to Antioch, I opposed him publicly, because he was clearly in the wrong.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
And when Peter was come to Antiochia, I withstood him to his face: for he was to be condemned.
But when Cephas came to An''ti-och, I reproved him to his face, because he was to be blamed.
But when Kefa came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly wrong.was self-condemned">[fn]Acts 15:35;">[xr]
But when Kipha had come to Antiokia, I rebuked him to his face, because they were offended by him.
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I rebuked him to his face; because they were stumbled by him.
Now when Peter [fn] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.
But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to stand up against him because he was guilty.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned;
But, when Cephas came unto Antioch, to the face, even , him, I resisted, because he stood condemned;
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was condemned.
But whe Peter was come to Antioche, I withstoode him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
When Peter came to Antioch, he did something that was not right. I stood against him, because he was wrong.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong.
But whanne Petre was comun to Antioche, Y ayenstood hym in the face, for he was worthi to be vndirnommen.
Contextual Overview
Bible Verse Review
from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge
to Antioch: Acts 15:30-35
I withstood: Galatians 2:5, 2 Corinthians 5:16, 2 Corinthians 11:5, 2 Corinthians 11:21-28, 2 Corinthians 12:11, 1 Timothy 5:20, Jude 1:3
because: Exodus 32:21, Exodus 32:22, Numbers 20:12, Jeremiah 1:17, Jonah 1:3, Jonah 4:3, Jonah 4:4, Jonah 4:9, Matthew 16:17, Matthew 16:18, Matthew 16:23, Acts 15:37-39, Acts 23:1-5, James 3:2, 1 John 1:8-10
Reciprocal: Genesis 20:2 - said Exodus 23:2 - follow Leviticus 19:17 - rebuke 1 Samuel 27:10 - And David 2 Chronicles 26:18 - withstood Uzziah Nehemiah 5:7 - I rebuked Job 21:31 - declare Job 27:5 - justify Job 34:4 - choose Psalms 141:5 - the righteous Proverbs 9:8 - rebuke Proverbs 28:23 - General Proverbs 29:25 - fear Ecclesiastes 4:10 - if Ezekiel 3:21 - he shall Mark 12:14 - carest Luke 17:3 - rebuke John 9:22 - because John 18:25 - He Acts 14:26 - to Antioch Galatians 2:6 - it maketh Galatians 2:14 - I said Galatians 2:17 - are found Galatians 6:1 - overtaken 1 Timothy 5:1 - Rebuke
Cross-References
The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba, Dedan.
Then Saul went after Amalek, from the canyon all the way to Shur near the Egyptian border. He captured Agag, king of Amalek, alive. Everyone else was killed under the terms of the holy ban. Saul and the army made an exception for Agag, and for the choice sheep and cattle. They didn't include them under the terms of the holy ban. But all the rest, which nobody wanted anyway, they destroyed as decreed by the holy ban.
Gill's Notes on the Bible
But when Peter was come to Antioch,.... 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 h 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 i 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 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.
h Apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 12. i In loc.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
But when Peter was come to Antioch - On the situation of Antioch, see the note at Acts 11:19. The design for which Paul introduces this statement here is evident. It is to show that he regarded himself as on a level with the chief apostles, and that he did not acknowledge his inferiority to any of them. Peter was the oldest, and probably the most honored of the apostles. Yet Paul says that he did not hesitate to resist him in a case where Peter was manifestly wrong, and thus showed that he was an apostle of the same standing as the others. Besides, what he said to Peter on that occasion was exactly pertinent to the strain of the argument which he was pursuing with the Galatians, and he therefore introduces it Galatians 2:14-21 to show that he had held the same doctrine all along, and that he had defended it in the presence of Peter, and in a case where Peter did not reply to it. The time of this journey of Peter to Antioch cannot be ascertained; nor the occasion on which it occurred. I think it is evident that it was after this visit of Paul to Jerusalem, and the occasion may have been to inspect the state of the church at Antioch, and to compose any differences of opinion which may have existed there. But everything in regard to this is mere conjecture; and it is of little importance to know when it occurred.
I withstood him to the face - I openly opposed him, and reproved him. Paul thus showed that he was equal with Peter in his apostolical authority and dignity. The instance before us is one of faithful public reproof; and every circumstance in it is worthy of special attention, as it furnishes a most important illustration of the manner in which such reproof should be conducted. The first thing to be noted is, that it was done openly, and with candor. It was reproof addressed to the offender himself. Paul did not go to others and whisper his suspicions; he did not seek to undermine the influence and authority of another by slander; he did not calumniate him and then justify himself on the ground that what he had said was no more than true: he went to him at once, and he frankly stated his views and reproved him in a case where he was manifestly wrong. This too was a case so public and well known that Paul made his remarks before the church Galatians 2:14 because the church was interested in it, and because the conduct of Peter led the church into error.
Because he was to be blamed - The word used here may either mean because he had incurred blame, or because he deserved blame. The essential idea is, that he had done wrong, and that he was by his conduct doing injury to the cause of religion.
Clarke's Notes on the Bible
Verse 11. When Peter was come to Antioch — There has been a controversy whether πετρος, Peter, here should not be read κηφας, 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 πετρος, 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 κηφας. 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.
