The passage
      v11. Following the Jerusalem Council, Peter visits Antioch and his actions, during his stay at Antioch, bring him into conflict with Paul. Paul confronts Peter over his inconsistent behavior and in the strongest of terms tells him, face-to-face, that "he stood condemned before God."
      v12. Peter, following the Cornelius incident, Act.10:1-11:18, shared in table fellowship (fellowship meals, and in particular, the Lord's Supper) with the Gentiles. By this action he demonstrated that both Jew and Gentile are equally approved before God, by grace through faith, apart from works of the law (Deuteronomic law forbids such contacts with "unclean" Gentiles). When the Council's letter arrives, Peter begins to draw back, quietly disassociating himself from the "unclean" Gentiles. Although most translations say "before the arrival of certain men from James", there is an important variant reading in the Greek which is neuter. So, "the certain things", most likely refer to the matters of table fellowship contained in the letter from the Jerusalem council. The problem with the council's letter is that it is easily misunderstood. Although the regulations only sought to encourage sensitivity on the part of the Gentiles toward the Jews, they could be taken as if supporting ritual cleanliness. Peter went on to apply the regulations, obviously trying to keep in with the circumcision party, Jewish believers centered on the Jerusalem church who insisted on the strict observance of Mosaic law.
      v13. Peter's actions were inevitably an affront to the gospel of God's free grace and sadly, his behavior led others astray; even Barnabas was swept along with it. Paul describes Peter's behavior as "hypocrisy", it was sinful, and Peter had now led others into this sin.
      v14. Paul exposes Peter's hypocrisy by showing how his actions do not "square with gospel truth." Peter, although a Jew, is no different to a Gentile sinner. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; none are righteous, no not one. Peter, as with his Gentile brothers and sisters, stands before God only by the grace of God, appropriated through faith in Christ. His standing rests on Christ's death and resurrection, not on obedience to Biblical law. "How then", says Paul, "can you, a person who believes that none are righteous no not one, pressure Gentiles into Jewish law-obedience?" Why must Gentiles adopt the law, when purity before God has nothing to do with obedience? Paul's words are very harsh, and this because Peter's position in the church would serve as a powerful influence on others, and this is exactly what has happened. The following passage, v15-21, contains the gist of Paul's theological argument against Peter, although his words now focus, not on Peter, but on the "circumcision group" in Galatia.

Living in line with the gospel
      As a Christian we possess great freedom, "the freedom we have in Christ Jesus." In Christ we find ourselves totally approved before God, no matter how weak our faith, or how compromised our behavior. Yet, freedom in Christ does not mean freedom to sin. Freedom from the law does not mean freedom for lawlessness. We are freed to appreciate, enjoy, to worship our God. Some would want to add, serve our God, but a line from the television series Big Battalions sums it up well, "kings can be served; God can only be worshiped."
      None-the-less, we do need guidelines, principles, for the freedom we possess in Christ. His freedom is not freedom for anarchy. Our passage identifies one such principle, and it is for Paul the apostle, one of the most important guiding principles for Christian living. Our behavior should be "in line with gospel truth", Gal.2:14. When Peter separated from his Gentile brothers and sisters over Deuteronomic regulations, he was "not acting in line with gospel truth" and so Paul did not hesitate to expose his "hypocrisy."
      Our actions must not undermine the truth that right-standing in the sight of God is a gift of grace appropriated through faith in Jesus Christ, and is not of good works. We must be careful not to give the impression that Christian piety, church association, or moral rectitude, somehow gains God's approval.

      In the opening passage of his letter, 1:1-5, Paul dispenses with his usual thanksgiving and prayer on behalf of the church and begins with a condensed salutation and then moves to denounce those who are promoting "a different gospel", v6-10.
      Paul then goes on to relate the events of his life after his conversion, focusing particularly on his relationship with the Jerusalem apostles, 1:11-24. This account serves to vindicate Paul's apostolic authority and the independence of his gospel message. Paul then recounts the events surrounding the Jerusalem council where both his apostolic authority and the validity of his gospel message is recognized by the leaders of the Jerusalem church, 2:1-10.
      At the conclusion of the Jerusalem council a circular letter was sent out to Paul's mission churches concerning those who "without authorization" were "troubling your minds", Act.15:1. The council determined that as far as the ethical requirements for Christian living are concerned, sensitivity in matters of "table fellowship" between Jews and Gentiles is all that is required - "abstain from" food sacrificed to idols, marital union within prohibited kindred and affinity, strangled meat and blood. Paul's historical survey climaxes in 2:11-14, with the account of his clash with Peter in Antioch, following the arrival of the Jerusalem council's letter (reading "before certain things came from James", Gal.2:12, as a reference to the regulations from the council, Acts 15:29). Peter had sat at table with the Gentiles, but following the letter, he withdrew due to the ritual unholiness of the Gentiles, i.e. they ate meat that had blood in it, etc. As far as Paul was concerned, even the limited requirements of the council could not be treated as law and thus a means of maintaining good standing in the sight of God. At the church in Antioch, Paul confronted Peter over this issue. Paul maintained the authority of his gospel of grace, even against Peter whose actions interfered with "the freedom we have in Christ Jesus".

Paul's confrontation with Peter at Antioch, 2:11-14

v11
      de "-" - Here probably functioning as an adversative. All has gone well at the Jerusalem Council, "but" then at Antioch there is a confrontation between Peter and Paul. "but when Cephas ...", Moffatt.
      oJte "when" - Temporal particle. The wording implies a well-known visit of Peter to Antioch, certainly the confrontation would have been well-known.
      Antioceian (a) "Antioch" - The church in Antioch, although not founded by Paul, served as his missionary base.
      anesthn (anisthmi) aor. "I opposed [him]" - I stood against, opposed. Expressing active opposition.
      kata proswpon "to his face" - to the face. Idiomatic for a direct person-to-person encounter, although not necessary a confrontation. "I told him face to face", CEV.
      oJti "because" - that. Causal, "because". "Since he was manifestly in the wrong", NJB.
      kategnwsmenoV (kataginwskw) perf. pas. part. + imperf. verb to-be. "he was clearly in the wrong" - he had been condemned. Virtually a periphrastic pluperfect, expressing a past existing state, "had been." Possibly "self-condemned by the inconsistency of his own actions", Lightfoot, treating the participle as middle rather than passive. That is, his actions did not square with what he believed. Yet, a passive is more likely, expressing Paul's view that because of Peter's actions "he stood condemned before God", Longenecker.

v12
      pro tou elqein (ercomai) inf. "before [certain men] came" - Temporal (antecedent time) articular infinitive formed with the preposition "before". It is likely that the prepositional phrase "from James" depends on "certain men/things" rather than "came", so underling the fact that the "men/things" came from James. "Before the arrival of certain men/things from James", cf. Bligh.
      tina "certain men" - certain things [from James]. The neuter variant, as here, is rarely accepted by translators, yet it is easy to understand why the neuter would be changed to masculine, but there is no reason whey a masculine would be changed to neuter. Donald Robinson (Bp. Aust.) argues for "certain things", taking the view that they are the instructions contained in a circular letter from the Jerusalem council concerning matters of sensitivity to Jews which, for the maintenance of table fellowship, should be addressed by Gentiles. These matters are namely: food sacrificed to idols, marital union within prohibited kindred and affinity, strangled meat and blood. There is, of course, much debate as to the purpose of these instruction and their nature. It is likely that their purpose is for the maintenance of table fellowship between Jew and Gentile. As to their nature, porneia, "fornication / sexual immorality" is unclear, but again Robinson suggests it is possibly a kindred and affinity issue. Paul's terminology here probably indicates that he has little time for these "things". As a guide to table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles, they have some use, but in their potential to divide Jew and Gentile, or even worse, to give the impression that purity is somehow realized by law, rather than grace, makes them less than useful. "Prior to the arrival of the instructions from James and the Jerusalem church concerning matters of table fellowship, Peter used to eat with Gentiles."
      sunhsqien (sunesqiw) imperf. "he used to eat" - The imperfect expressing past ongoing, habitual action, "he used to always eat." General table fellowship may be intended, or in particular, the Lord's Supper.
      twn eqnwn "[with] the Gentiles" - The word may generally refer to "people", but it is more likely that "Gentiles" is intended.
      uJpestellen (uJpostellw) imperf. "he began to draw back" - he was drawing back. Probably an inceptive imperfect, as NIV, indicating a subtle drawing back, possibly not done openly. The verb often takes the sense of withdrawing out of cowardice.
      afwrizen (aforizw) imperf. "[he began] to separate [himself]" - was separating. Inceptive imperfect again, although possibly tendential, "tried to completely separate himself", Barclay.
      foboumenoV (fobew) perf. pas. part. "because he was afraid" - fearing. The participle is probably causal, "because", as NIV. What was he afraid of? "Barrett suggests that the circumcision party, centered in the Jerusalem church, was obviously very powerful and Peter feared the threat of their breaking off fellowship.
      touV ek peritomhV "those who belonged to the circumcision group" - the ones of circumcision. Referring to members of "the circumcision party", the "judaizers". The preposition "out of / from" may indicate the sense "converts from Judaism", Lightfoot, although this is unlikely. Debate rages as to the actual character of this group. It is likely that they were primarily converted Jews, but Gentiles and God-fearers may well have been included in their ranks. It seems clear that they regarded obedience to the Mosaic Law as an essential element of the Christian life, ie., they were pietists. It is unlikely that they believed that obedience saves a person; as with all believers they would have happily affirmed that their salvation rested on faith in Christ. Even a Jew understands that their salvation is dependent on the grace of God. Yet, it is likely that they saw their standing in the sight of God maintained and progressed through obedience to the Mosaic Law, possibly including the "law of Christ" (ie. they were nomists, not legalists). For a pietist the law-obedience serves to restrain sin and progress holiness. For Paul, such a view struck at the very heart of the gospel. A person's right-standing in the sight of God (covenant compliance) is eternally secure as a gift of grace (God's covenant mercy) appropriated through faith alone. To return to the law to further secure our standing before God is to place ourselves under the curse of the law and thus to undermine our standing before God. Peter's move to maintain ritual purity in table fellowship undermined the very core of the gospel and thus provoked Paul's reaction. Of course new perspective commentators argue that the issue for Paul is not the salvation of the Gentiles, but rather their full inclusion, with Jewish believers, in the new covenant. "The party who insisted on the observance of the Jewish law", Barclay.

v13
      oiJ loipoi Ioudaioi "the other Jews" - the rest of Jews. Obviously referring to the Jewish believers in the Antioch fellowship.
      sunupekriqhsan (sunupokrinomai) "joined [him] in his hypocrisy" - joined in pretense, together acted insincerely [with him]. Used of hiding ones true feelings or thoughts under a guise, so for instance, an actor behind a mask. Possibly indicating that the Jewish believers didn't fully agree with their separation from the Gentile believers, or at least, didn't understand the theological import of their actions; "the other Jewish Christians showed the same lack of principle", REB.
      wJste "so that" - Expressing result.
      th/ uJpokrisei (iV ewV) dat. "by their hypocrisy" - by the hypocrisy [of them]. A sense like "false play", Moffatt, "insincerity", NJB, "pretence", Williams, is too soft. Paul regards this behavior as evil, so "hypocrisy", as NIV. Possibly an instrumental dative, as NIV, although locative seems best, "even Barnabas with swept along with their hypocrisy", Bligh.
      sunaphcqh (sunagw) aor. pas. "was led astray" - led away together. "Swept along", Bligh.