Paul now relates the incident of Peter’s visit to Antioch as a further proof of his independence from the other apostles.

We are not sure when Peter visited Antioch, but it certainly was after Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem. Antioch is the major city in Syria, and the book of Acts informs us that it was from there that Paul started his first missionary journey (13.1-3). The membership of the church in Antioch consisted of both Jews and Gentiles, and apparently this had not caused any problems within the fellowship.

In rendering the clause when Peter came to Antioch, it is important to indicate that this was merely a visit and not a permanent change of residence.

I opposed him may be rendered as “I spoke against him,” or “I spoke against what he did.”

In public is literally “to the face,” a current idiom during Paul’s day. Some understand this to mean a face-to-face confrontation (New American Bible “I directly withstood him”). Others see an open public encounter as the main component (compare Phillips “I had to oppose him publicly,” thus connecting verse 11 with verse 14). In order to make clear that the phrase in public refers to the group of Christians and not to the people of the city in general, one may say “I opposed him with all the believers listening,” or “… in front of all the believers.”

He was clearly wrong may be rendered as “he stood condemned” (Revised Standard Version), here having the force of “guilty.” What Paul means is that it was obvious from Peter’s own actions that he was wrong (Knox “he stood self-condemned”). Since the mistake that Peter had made was not one of words but of actions, it may be important to translate “because what he did was wrong,” or “because it was clear that what he had done was not right.”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .