Papacy Debate, Peter/Cephas? Galatians 2:11-14

[Maryam]

Hi everyone,
I was having a debate with a friend of mine who is an Orthodox Coptic Christian regarding the validity of the Apostolic succession in the Catholic Church.

I argued that why would Jesus make a point of stating that Peter is the rock on which he will build the church and that if this is not true and Peter is not the first Pope of the Catholic Church then Jesus would be contradicting himself…

My Coptic friend brought up these verses in which he pointed out that Paul admonished Peter’s behavior in acting hipocritically in at first eating with the Gentiles and then for fear of the Jews, only eating with the Jews…in Galatians 2:11-14

He then said that this shows that Paul was on equal standing with Peter in being able to admonish him for his behavior and that from Paul Christianity came to all the Gentiles, so that the claims of the Catholic Church to having the true Apostolic Succession is void.

At this point we were interrupted and so I looked in my RSV-CE bible later that night for these verses… I found (11)"And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. (12)For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles, but, separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. (13)And the rest of the Jews also acted hipocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabus was carried away by their hipocrisy.(14) But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how you can compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

But, in looking at the NKJV bible (the version my Coptic friend uses) I saw that in verse “11” instead of the name Cephas, it uses Peter: (11) Now, when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed,"

So, now I am confused as to how to respond to my friend the next time I see him because I know he will bring it up… If due to the use of older texts for bible translations in the NkJV as opposed to the RSV-CE bible in accounting for the use of Cephas instead of Peter in verse 11… Then how do I explain to my friend why in earlier verses of (Galatians 2:7-8) it speaks of Peter being in charge of preaching to the Circumcised (Jews) and that this admonishment by Paul regarding hipocrisy did not include Peter as well?

Because I know he will bring this up and say that how can it be that Peter was not part of those that Paul admonished regardless of the name of Cephas or Peter being used in verse 11?

I want to be prepared… Ok, I think I am done… Sorry I have written ALOT.

Please respond soon as I don’t want to be caught off-guard by my friend in not knowing how to respond.

THANKS!!!

God bless and Happy Easter!!

 

[RSiscoe]

Simple. Peter was behaving poorly, and he was admonished by Paul for it. That is not too difficult to explain.

The Jews always considered Gentiles inferior to themselves. Gentiles were considered “heathens” (which they were), whereas the Jews (during the Old Testament) were the true children of God. During the New Testament, the Jews (who became Christians) and Gentiles are equal. Since the Jews had considered themselves superior to the Gentiles for so long, it was hard for the Jewish Christians to come to realize that they are no better than Gentile Christians (Galatians 3:27-29).

Peter, through human respect, unfortunately allowed this to influence his behavior. When the Jewish Christians were not around, he ate with the Gentile Christians; but when the Jewish Christians were around, he kept his distance from the Gentile Christians (so the Jews did not think bad of him for being around Gentiles). This was not good. Therefore, Paul “rebuked him to his face, because he was to blame.”

This rebuke does not mean Paul was of a higher rank than Peter, or vica versa. All it means is that Peter was behaving poorly and he was corrected. This shows us that Popes can, and have, behaved poorly. When they do so, it is very appropriate for them to be rebuked, even publically. And that is what happened in the verse you brought up.

 

[Maryam]

Hi all, I just wanted to say that I am aware that Cephas=Peter, I just wasn’t clear in my explanation as to why it is used in verse 11 as Peter instead of Cephas as in the RSV-CE.

RSiscoe, my friend is not a “simple” person lol He was educated by Coptic monks in Upper (southern) Egypt, so it is not enough to say to him “Peter was a bad boy and so needed to be scolded”. He wants biblical verses backing ones point. I understand your viewpoint totally so I hope you don’t misunderstand me.

If I came with this viewpoint to my friend he would shoot me down (although gently lol) and say that how can Paul admonish Peter if he was not considered by Peter to be his equal? and why was Paul given the task of preaching to the “uncircumcised” (Gentiles)? and if to him this task was given then it makes Apostolic succession through Peter irrelevant.

I can imagine the bible verses he will bring out and speak of how Peter was to preach only to the “circumcised” (Jews) and so how can the RC Church validly claim he has the right to being the first Pope?

I know I seem annoying, but, I know my friends way of thinking.

Thanks for your post RSiscoe, it is much appreciated friend.

God bless

 

[Ghosty]

Your friend has a misunderstanding of Papal Infallibility is all. Popes make mistakes, and can be rebuked by them, even by the laity. It is the official teachings of the Popes that the Church considers to be doctrine. Peter wasn’t teaching anything in that incident, he was just acting poorly, and his friend and fellow Apostle rightly, and thankfully, called him on it. The same thing goes on today in the Catholic Church, even with Papal Infallibility defined by a Council.

I could walk up to the Pope today and get in his face and take him to task on opposing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, for example, and be perfectly within my rights to do so, even arguing from Scripture to back up my point. Heck, people have done nearly as much on that very issue!

On matters of opinion, the Pope is my equal. The Church teaches this, and we as Catholics recognize it. On matters of behavior, the Pope is my equal. On matters of explicit teaching, the Pope is my superior by virtue of the statements of Christ and the passing of the keys. There is nothing opposed to this in Catholic teaching and Scripture. Quite simply, your friend is bringing up a complete non-issue.

 

[Even_Keal]

This was a very useful thread. A protestant relative, I butt heads with from time-to-time likes to bring up Gal 2:11-14 to prove that Peter was not the prime apostle.

 

[De_Maria]

…RSiscoe, my friend is not a “simple” person lol He was educated by Coptic monks in Upper (southern) Egypt, so it is not enough to say to him “Peter was a bad boy and so needed to be scolded”. He wants biblical verses backing ones point. I understand your viewpoint totally so I hope you don’t misunderstand me…

The Copts are not a Scripture alone Church. Therefore, you don’t have to worry that he might force you to produce Biblical script for backing up your assertions.

Catholic History is replete with examples of Saints who reprimanded Popes. One that comes to mind immediately is St. Catherine of Siena scolding Pope Urban VI. In summary, she told him to stand up and act like a man.

traditioninaction.org/SOD/j125sdCatherineSiena_3-29.htm

As for the occasion of St. Paul reprimanding St. Peter, I’m of the opinion that this is recorded in Scripture to show that St. Paul was not yet perfected in charity. Otherwise, why did he reprimand St. Peter for a trait that he elsewhere boasted about in himself.

Let me explain. St. Paul claimed that St. Peter was wrong for shrinking away from eating with the Gentiles when the Jewish Christians came around.

Yet, he circumcised St. Timothy to placate the Jewish Christians:

Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Then we have his famous boast that he is all things to all men:

1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

1 Corinthians 10:33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

And then, of course, his advice that one should not offend anyone by eating things they find sinful. Which is precisely what St. Peter did:

1 Corinthians 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

So, there you go. I hope that helps.

 

[Wesrock]

It should be noted that Paul had Timothy, a gentile, circumcised before going to the Temple in Jerusalem. In Romans, he later cautioned Christians from doing things that would cause weaker Christians to stumble. Which is not unlike what Peter did, even if Peter took it too far. Paul’s own theology seems to have developed.

 

[James248]

It should be noted that Paul had Timothy, a gentile, circumcised before going to the Temple in Jerusalem. In Romans, he later cautioned Christians from doing things that would cause weaker Christians to stumble. Which is not unlike what Peter did, even if Peter took it too far. Paul’s own theology seems to have developed.

Paul’s situation with Timothy was totally different. We can’t forget that Timothy had a Greek father and Jewish mother.

 

[A_Palazzo]

Here is Metzger on Galatians 2:11 even though the formatting will be all off:

Instead of the Aramaic name Khfa◊ß, the Textus Receptus, following D F G K L syrhtxt goth Marcion Marius Victorinus Chrysostom al, substitutes the more familiar Pe÷troß. Khfa◊ß is strongly supported by å A B C H P 33 103 104 181 263 424c 436 vg syrp, hmg copsa, bo arm eth. (See also the comment on 1.18.)

The KJV and NKJV have “Peter” because that’s what is in the Textus Receptus.

The significance of this for your discussion, however, is totally lost on me as either name refers to the same person.

 

[po18guy]

It should be noted that Paul had Timothy, a gentile, circumcised before going to the Temple in Jerusalem. In Romans, he later cautioned Christians from doing things that would cause weaker Christians to stumble. Which is not unlike what Peter did, even if Peter took it too far. Paul’s own theology seems to have developed.

Had Peter chosen to, he could have railed against Paul for his hypocrisy in having Timothy circumcised. If this occurred after the point at which Paul wrote against circumcision, it is even worse.

 

[James248]

Had Peter chosen to, he could have railed against Paul for his hypocrisy in having Timothy circumcised. If this occurred after the point at which Paul wrote against circumcision, it is even worse.

Timothy was raised as a Jew, apart from the fact that he had a Greek father and a Jewish mother. So Peter would have no grounds to rail against Paul.

 

[PJM]

Hi everyone,
I was having a debate with a friend of mine who is an Orthodox Coptic Christian regarding the validity of the Apostolic succession in the Catholic Church.

I argued that why would Jesus make a point of stating that Peter is the rock on which he will build the church and that if this is not true and Peter is not the first Pope of the Catholic Church then Jesus would be contradicting himself.

I LOVE this question

I can provide a LIST of 50 PETER FIRST from the Bible

It is no accident that Jesus choose Peter ]a natural leader], who also was a sinner. GUESS WHAT we are ALL sinners.

What is TRULY amazing is that GOD is able to use sinners like Peter, like and me and you to HIS BENEFIT

The GOOGLE “Earyl Fathers on the Primacy”
.

My Coptic friend brought up these verses in which he pointed out that Paul admonished Peter’s behavior in acting hipocritically in at first eating with the Gentiles and then for fear of the Jews, only eating with the Jews…in Galatians 2:11-14

He then said that this shows that Paul was on equal standing with Peter in being able to admonish him for his behavior and that from Paul Christianity came to all the Gentiles, so that the claims of the Catholic Church to having the true Apostolic Succession is void.

My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:** [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation**. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

[Douay explanation]
[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quotes

Then POINT out that EVEN THE EASTERN CHURCHES accepted Peter AS THEIR LEADER UNTIL 1054 @ and the Great Eastern Schism:thumbsup:

But, in looking at the NKJV bible (the version my Coptic friend uses) I saw that in verse “11” instead of the name Cephas, it uses Peter: (11) Now, when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed,"

So, now I am confused as to how to respond to my friend the next time I see him because I know he will bring it up… If due to the use of older texts for bible translations in the NkJV as opposed to the RSV-CE bible in accounting for the use of Cephas instead of Peter in verse 11… Then how do I explain to my friend why in earlier verses of (Galatians 2:7-8) it speaks of Peter being in charge of preaching to the Circumcised (Jews) and that this admonishment by Paul regarding hipocrisy did not include Peter as well?

ALL 3 NAMES ARE BIONICALLY THE ONE AND SAME PETER

Because I know he will bring this up and say that how can it be that Peter was not part of those that Paul admonished regardless of the name of Cephas or Peter being used in verse 11?

I want to be prepared… Ok, I think I am done… Sorry I have written ALOT.

Please respond soon as I don’t want to be caught off-guard by my friend in not knowing how to respond.

Do do the GOOGLE search I gave you

What {Paul does here is no more than any {ALL] of us is commaned to do

Mt 18:[15] But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

[16] And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. [17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."

THEN Point out this:

Mt 10: 1-4 "Matt.10

[1] And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.
[2] The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother; [3] Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;[4] Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

THANKS!!!

God bless and Happy Easter!!

Your friend is a bother; but a misinformed brother

GBY both