But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed.
Read Chapter 2
Clement Of Rome
AD 99
If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute.
I withstood him to the face. Erasmus and others interpret this to mean in appearance, outwardly, feignedly, and by previous arrangement. The literal meaning is better: I openly resisted Peter, in order that the public scandal caused by him might he removed by a public rebuke (Augustine, Ambrose, Bede, Anselm, and nearly all other authorities).
Because he was to be blamed. (1.) Because he had been blamed (κατεγνωσμÎνος) by other brethren, whom Peter had offended by this proceeding, in their ignorance of his true intention and motive, as Chrysostom and Jerome say, or, as Ephrem turns it, "because they were offended in him." (2.) Theophylact and Å’cumenius understand it: Peter had been blamed by the other Apostles because he had eaten with the Gentile Cornelius at Cæsarea. Fearing lest he should be blamed again by them or by other Jews, he withdrew himself from all intercourse with the Gentiles. (3.) The opinion of Ambrose is better. He had fallen under the condemnation of t...
But when Cephas who took the reprehension so mildly, without alleging the primacy, which our Lord had given him. Baronius held that St. Peter did not sin at all, which may be true, if we look upon his intention only, which was to give no offence to the Jewish converts; but if we examine the fact, he can scarce be excused from a venial indiscretion. (Witham)
I withstood The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts: but this in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul's reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for is such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior. (Challoner)
It is not that Peter and Cephas signify different things, but what we would call in Latin and Greek petra (“stone”) the Hebrews and Syrians both, because of the affinity of their languages, call cephas…. Nor is it surprising that Luke was silent on this matter, when there are many other things that Paul claims to have suffered which Luke omits with the freedom of a historian. .
Many of those who read this passage of the letter superficially believe that Paul rebuked the hypocrisy of Peter. But it is not so—it is not so, far from it! For we shall find that there was here a deep though hidden understanding between Paul and Peter for the good of those who listen. … How could one who risked his life before such a multitude have ever played the hypocrite? … Paul does not now say this to condemn Peter, but in the same spirit as when he said those who are “reputed to be something,” he now says this too…. The apostles, as I said before, consented to circumcision in Jerusalem, because it was not possible to tear them away from the law all at once. But when they came to Antioch they did not henceforth observe anything of the kind but lived indifferently with believers of Gentile origin. Peter also did this. But when people came from Judea and saw him preaching there in this way, he gave up this practice, fearing to disturb them, and changed his ways. He had a twofold p...
Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers. But first a word must be said about Peter's freedom in speech, and how it was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples. Indeed it was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated in common, he stepped before the others and answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:16 This was when the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mount; Matthew 17:4 and when Christ spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, Be it far from You. Matthew 16:22 These words evince, if not a cautious temper, at least a fervent love; and in all instances we find ...
When he was resident in Jerusalem, Peter condescended to Judaism, not prohibiting circumcision, nor the Sabbaths. When he came down to Antioch, however, he ate with those from the nations who had believed in the Lord without - any discrimination. Then, when certain people came down from Jerusalem, he was afraid in case he scandalized them and separated himself from those with whom he previously used to eat. But Paul made some sort of economy with him, when he rebuked him in front of everyone for demanding from the nations to Judaize; inasmuch as he intended that by seeing the teacher hearing this rebuke and remaining silent, they might learn that they should not keep the Jewish customs. The whole case was one of economy, based on the prudence of both and intended for the benefit of the disciples, so that even if Peter is said to have behaved as a hypocrite, and not to have been upright, this is understood to have been said for the benefit of the disciples, and on account of the economy...
