Peter and Cephas in Galatians 2:7-14

[SHW]

Many people believe that the Apostle Peter was rebuked by Paul in Galatians 2:7-14.

I believe that they misunderstand. Peter and Cephas are two different people in this passage and this is why Paul chose to speak of the Apostle Peter first and then of “Cephas,” one of the 70 disciples along with “James” and “John” who were also not apostles but who were among the original 70 disciples.

Don’t look in the KJV (and its subsequent editions) as this passage is mistranslated from the original Greek text. It should have Cephas the disciple as the person rebuked in verses 11 and 14 instead of Peter the Apostle.

The ASB (CE) has the correct translation of the two names for all the verses but I and many others believe that the “study notes” pertaining to these verses are in error.

See members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf for an explanation of my belief.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Many people believe that the Apostle Peter was rebuked by Paul in Galatians 2:7-14.

I believe that they misunderstand. Peter and Cephas are two different people in this passage and this is why Paul chose to speak of the Apostle Peter first and then of “Cephas,” one of the 70 disciples along with “James” and “John” who were also not apostles but who were among the original 70 disciples.

Don’t look in the KJV (and its subsequent editions) as this passage is mistranslated from the original Greek text. It should have Cephas the disciple as the person rebuked in verses 11 and 14 instead of Peter the Apostle.

The ASB (CE) has the correct translation of the two names for all the verses but I and many others believe that the “study notes” pertaining to these verses are in error.

See members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf for an explanation of my belief.

ASB-CE??? What version is that??? Here is how the Douay-Rheims interprets it from the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 7. As to Peter was that of the circumcision. Calvin pretends to prove by this, that St. Peter and his successors are not head of the whole Church, because St. Peter was only the apostle of the Jews. But St. Paul speaks not here of the power and jurisdiction, but of the manner that St. Peter and he were to be employed. It was judged proper that St. Peter would preach chiefly to the Jews, who had been the elect people of God, and that St. Paul should be sent to the Gentiles; yet both of them preached both to Jews and Gentiles: and St. Peter, by receiving Cornelius, first opened the gate of salvation to the Gentiles, as he says of himself, (Acts xv. 7.) that God made choice of him, that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the gospel, and believe. That St. Peter was head of the Church, see the notes on Matthew xvi. and John xxi. (Witham)

Ver. 9. James, and Cephas, and John. No proof of any greater authority can be drawn from the placing or numbering of James first, which perhaps St. Paul might do, because of the great respect he knew the Jewish converts had for St. James, bishop of Jerusalem, where the ceremonies of the law of Moses were still observed. Several Greek copies have Peter, James, and John. So we also read in St. Jerome’s Commentary, p. 240, and St. Chrysostom in his Exposition, p. 729, has Cephas, John, and James. (Witham)

part 1

 

[tobinatorstark]

part 2

Ver. 11. But when Cephas, &c.[1] In most Greek copies, we read Petrus, both here and ver. 13. Nor are there any sufficient, nor even probable grounds to judge, that Cephas here mentioned was different from Peter, the prince of the apostles, as one or two later authors would make us believe. Among those who fancied Cephas different from Peter, not one can be named in the first ages [centuries], except Clemens of Alexandria, whose works were rejected as apochryphal by Pope Gelasius. The next author is Dorotheus of Tyre, in his Catalogue of the seventy-two disciples, in the fourth or fifth age [century], and after him the like, or same catalogue, in the seventh age [century], in the Chronicle, called of Alexandria, neither of which are of any authority with the learned, so many evident faults and falsehoods being found in both. St. Jerome indeed on this place says, there were some (though he does not think fit to name them) who were of that opinion; but at the same time St. Jerome ridicules and rejects it as groundless. Now as to authors that make Cephas the same with St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, we have what may be called the unexceptionable and unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church, as of Tertullian, who calls this management of St. Peter, a fault of conversation, not of preaching or doctrine. Of St. Cyprian, of Origen, of the great doctors, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory the Great, of St. Cyril of Alexandria, of Theodoret, Pope Gelasius, Pelagius the second, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas. In later ages, of Bellarmine, Baronius, Binius, Spondan, of Salmeron, Estius, Gagneius, Tirinus, Menochius, Alex natalis, and a great many more: so that Cornelius a Lapide on this place says, that the Church neither knows, nor celebrates any other Cephas but St. Peter. Tertullian and most interpreters take notice, that St. Peter’s fault was only a lesser or venial sin in his conduct and conversation. Did not St. Paul on several occasions do the like, as what is here laid to St. Peter’s charge? that is, practise the Jewish ceremonies: did not he circumcise Timothy after this, an. 52 [in the year A.D. 52]? did he not shave his head in Cenchrea, an. 54? did he not by the advice of St. James (an. 58.) purify himself with the Jews in the temple, not to offend them? St. Jerome, and also St. Chrysostom,[2] give another exposition of this passage. They looked upon all this to have been done by a contrivance and a collusion betwixt these two apostles, who had agreed beforehand that St. Peter should let himself be reprehended by St. Paul, (for this they take to be signified by the Greek text) and not that St. Peter was reprehensible;[3] so that the Jews seeing St. Peter publicly blamed, and not justifying himself, might for the future eat with the Gentiles. But St. Augustine vigorously opposed this exposition of St. Jerome, as less consistent with a Christian and apostolical sincerity, and with the text in this chapter, where it is called a dissimulation, and that Cephas or Peter walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel. After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, St. Jerome seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins. What we have to admire, is the humility of St. Peter on this occasion, as St. Cyprian observes,[4] 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, &c. 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)

 

[porthos11]

Many people believe that the Apostle Peter was rebuked by Paul in Galatians 2:7-14.

I believe that they misunderstand. Peter and Cephas are two different people in this passage and this is why Paul chose to speak of the Apostle Peter first and then of “Cephas,” one of the 70 disciples along with “James” and “John” who were also not apostles but who were among the original 70 disciples.

Don’t look in the KJV (and its subsequent editions) as this passage is mistranslated from the original Greek text. It should have Cephas the disciple as the person rebuked in verses 11 and 14 instead of Peter the Apostle.

The ASB (CE) has the correct translation of the two names for all the verses but I and many others believe that the “study notes” pertaining to these verses are in error.

See members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf for an explanation of my belief.

Uh uh. Sorry. Peter and Cephas are one and the same person. Jesus himself said so in John 1:42. Cephas is simply the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha, which is the equivalent of petra, masculinized to Petros, rock.

There’s no need to whitewash anything. St. Peter was rebuked by St. Paul, and that was not going to be the last time a Pope was rebuked by one of the faithful.

I read the Greek, and I know for sure this is the same fellow. And I apologize in advance if you’re the author of that article (I don’t know for sure), but it reflects poor exegesis, fails to take the whole New Testament into consideration (especially John 1:42), and does not fully consider the Aramaic and Greek.

 

[NotWorthy]

I agree with the disagreers.

Cephas is a Greek translation of the Aramaic Kepha, or Rock. There is no history of anyone being named “Rock” back at that time.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Some of the Early Church Fathers believed that they were 2 different people.

In the 3rd century Clement of Alexandria observed that “Cephas was one of the 70 disciples who happened to have the same name as Peter the Apostle.” This same belief is found in the writings of St. Dorotheus of Tyre (4th c.) and Eusebius, the well-known historian of the ancient Church (4th c.). In yet another early Christian writing “Epistle of the Apostles” dated about 160 A.D. can be read:

"We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathaniel, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and west, of the north and south… "

credo.stormloader.com/Doctrine/cephas.htm

 

[NotWorthy]

Some of the Early Church Fathers believed that they were 2 different people.

credo.stormloader.com/Doctrine/cephas.htm

Is there any precedent that this name was used back then?

 

[porthos11]

Some of the Early Church Fathers believed that they were 2 different people.

credo.stormloader.com/Doctrine/cephas.htm

The evidence is too flimsy, given John 1:42 alone.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The evidence is too flimsy, given John 1:42 alone.

I am going to have t agree with you on this one. I have seen evidence supporting your statement with John 1:42 and with Some of the passage I posted above from the Haydock Bible Commentary

 

[FCEGM]

Many people believe that the Apostle Peter was rebuked by Paul in Galatians 2:7-14.

I believe that they misunderstand. Peter and Cephas are two different people in this passage and this is why Paul chose to speak of the Apostle Peter first and then of “Cephas,” one of the 70 disciples along with “James” and “John” who were also not apostles but who were among the original 70 disciples.

Don’t look in the KJV (and its subsequent editions) as this passage is mistranslated from the original Greek text. It should have Cephas the disciple as the person rebuked in verses 11 and 14 instead of Peter the Apostle.

The ASB (CE) has the correct translation of the two names for all the verses but I and many others believe that the “study notes” pertaining to these verses are in error.

See members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf for an explanation of my belief.

Another disagreer here. That article erroneously attempts to vindicate Peter while overlooking the actual vindication given by Paul’s words. St. Paul is precise in switching between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. The name “Kephas” is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha” ("Rock) - the name which Our Lord actually used for St. Peter; however, in Greek “Kephas” means something all on its own. In Greek, “Kephas” means “Head”. And so, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the Head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. So in looking at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”, whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8).

 

[SHW]

Eusebius is the early historian of the Church.

I cannot imagine that Peter would suddenly become a coward and refuse to eat with the Gentiles in front of the Jews when earlier he so very boldly proclaimed that Christians could eat any meat that they wanted in Acts 10 and also that Gentiles were to be allowed to become Christians and be baptized which was an absolutely astonishing teaching to the Jews. If he was going to be afraid of the Jews, this would have been the appropriate time to be afraid of displeasing them and to fear reprisal because the Jews thought that they were to be the only “chosen” people who would be saved.

Cowering in front of the Jews does not fit Peter’s character. Peter is normally brash, not cowardly in front of others. He sliced off the ear of the servant in the garden when they came to arrest Jesus (John 18:10). He said that Jesus shall never wash his feet at the Last Supper (John 13:8-9) but then enthusiastically asked Jesus to wash his hands and his head besides his feet after Jesus explained that it was necessary for Peter’s feet to be washed in order to have a part with Him.

True, he did deny Jesus three times in the extreme circumstance of fearing his own immediate death, but I would say that he learned his lesson well and never repeated any such cowardly acts.

Anne Catherine Emmerich also saw in her visions that the Cephas in Galatians 2 was one of the 70 disciples and not Peter the Apostle. (Yes, I know this is private revelation and is not the “proof” needed for a doctrinal statement but it does not mean that she is incorrect either.)

I am not trying to “whitewash” Peter’s behavior as mentioned in another post.

Peter and Cephas can very well be two different persons in Galatians 2. There is no need for Paul to differentiate between the headship of Peter of the Church and his supposed failing by using two different names for Peter. This is absurd to me.

If my “king” and leader and authority is called King John and if I am rebuking King John, I do not change his name in order to do so. He is still King John. I do not change his name to “Johannes” because I am rebuking him. His status and name stays the same as “King John.”

I believe that Paul used two different names because he wanted to differentiate between two different men. He wanted to make sure that everyone knew that he was speaking of Peter the Apostle when he called Peter “Peter” and the disciple Cephas “Cephas” because they were two different men with the same name.

Also, Paul listed Cephas between James and John. I do not think that Paul was lowering any person’s status by the placement of the names in his speech. Cephas is truly one of the 70 disciples along with James and John who are also not apostles. James and John are also very common Jewish names.

Peter is always listed first in every other passage in the Bible and Paul would have no need to move the Apostle Peter’s name from first in status or to even change his name in order to rebuke him.

I cannot see Paul acting in the way that many scholars think that he did in this supposed “rebuke” of Peter the Apostle. I will continue to disagree. I believe that they are two different people.

 

[COPLAND_3]

The evidence is too flimsy, given John 1:42 alone.

I have mixed emotions, St. Clement and Eusebius are heavy weights in my opinion. But it really does not matter if it was St. Peter or another named Cephas, it does not change anything that we believe, as some have tried to argue.

 

[savedsinner]

Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

Ver. 11. But when Cephas, &c.[1] In most Greek copies, we read Petrus, both here and ver. 13. Nor are there any sufficient, nor even probable grounds to judge, that Cephas here mentioned was different from Peter, the prince of the apostles, as one or two later authors would make us believe. Among those who fancied Cephas different from Peter, not one can be named in the first ages [centuries], except Clemens of Alexandria, whose works were rejected as apochryphal by Pope Gelasius. The next author is Dorotheus of Tyre, in his Catalogue of the seventy-two disciples, in the fourth or fifth age [century], and after him the like, or same catalogue, in the seventh age [century], in the Chronicle, called of Alexandria, neither of which are of any authority with the learned, so many evident faults and falsehoods being found in both. St. Jerome indeed on this place says, there were some (though he does not think fit to name them) who were of that opinion; but at the same time St. Jerome ridicules and rejects it as groundless. Now as to authors that make Cephas the same with St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, we have what may be called the unexceptionable and unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church, as of Tertullian, who calls this management of St. Peter, a fault of conversation, not of preaching or doctrine. Of St. Cyprian, of Origen, of the great doctors, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory the Great, of St. Cyril of Alexandria, of Theodoret, Pope Gelasius, Pelagius the second, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas. In later ages, of Bellarmine, Baronius, Binius, Spondan, of Salmeron, Estius, Gagneius, Tirinus, Menochius, Alex natalis, and a great many more: so that Cornelius a Lapide on this place says, that the Church neither knows, nor celebrates any other Cephas but St. Peter. Tertullian and most interpreters take notice, that St. Peter’s fault was only a lesser or venial sin in his conduct and conversation. Did not St. Paul on several occasions do the like, as what is here laid to St. Peter’s charge? that is, practise the Jewish ceremonies: did not he circumcise Timothy after this, an. 52 [in the year A.D. 52]? did he not shave his head in Cenchrea, an. 54? did he not by the advice of St. James (an. 58.) purify himself with the Jews in the temple, not to offend them? St. Jerome, and also St. Chrysostom,[2] give another exposition of this passage. They looked upon all this to have been done by a contrivance and a collusion betwixt these two apostles, who had agreed beforehand that St. Peter should let himself be reprehended by St. Paul, (for this they take to be signified by the Greek text) and not that St. Peter was reprehensible;[3] so that the Jews seeing St. Peter publicly blamed, and not justifying himself, might for the future eat with the Gentiles. But St. Augustine vigorously opposed this exposition of St. Jerome, as less consistent with a Christian and apostolical sincerity, and with the text in this chapter, where it is called a dissimulation, and that Cephas or Peter walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel. After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, St. Jerome seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins. What we have to admire, is the humility of St. Peter on this occasion, as St. Cyprian observes,[4] 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, &c. 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)

 

[porthos11]

Eusebius is the early historian of the Church.

I cannot imagine that Peter would suddenly become a coward and refuse to eat with the Gentiles in front of the Jews when earlier he so very boldly proclaimed that Christians could eat any meat that they wanted in Acts 10 and also that Gentiles were to be allowed to become Christians and be baptized which was an absolutely astonishing teaching to the Jews. If he was going to be afraid of the Jews, this would have been the appropriate time to be afraid of displeasing them and to fear reprisal because the Jews thought that they were to be the only “chosen” people who would be saved.

Cowering in front of the Jews does not fit Peter’s character. Peter is normally brash, not cowardly in front of others. He sliced off the ear of the servant in the garden when they came to arrest Jesus (John 18:10). He said that Jesus shall never wash his feet at the Last Supper (John 13:8-9) but then enthusiastically asked Jesus to wash his hands and his head besides his feet after Jesus explained that it was necessary for Peter’s feet to be washed in order to have a part with Him.

True, he did deny Jesus three times in the extreme circumstance of fearing his own immediate death, but I would say that he learned his lesson well and never repeated any such cowardly acts.

Anne Catherine Emmerich also saw in her visions that the Cephas in Galatians 2 was one of the 70 disciples and not Peter the Apostle. (Yes, I know this is private revelation and is not the “proof” needed for a doctrinal statement but it does not mean that she is incorrect either.)

I am not trying to “whitewash” Peter’s behavior as mentioned in another post.

Peter and Cephas can very well be two different persons in Galatians 2. There is no need for Paul to differentiate between the headship of Peter of the Church and his supposed failing by using two different names for Peter. This is absurd to me.

If my “king” and leader and authority is called King John and if I am rebuking King John, I do not change his name in order to do so. He is still King John. I do not change his name to “Johannes” because I am rebuking him. His status and name stays the same as “King John.”

I believe that Paul used two different names because he wanted to differentiate between two different men. He wanted to make sure that everyone knew that he was speaking of Peter the Apostle when he called Peter “Peter” and the disciple Cephas “Cephas” because they were two different men with the same name.

Also, Paul listed Cephas between James and John. I do not think that Paul was lowering any person’s status by the placement of the names in his speech. Cephas is truly one of the 70 disciples along with James and John who are also not apostles. James and John are also very common Jewish names.

Peter is always listed first in every other passage in the Bible and Paul would have no need to move the Apostle Peter’s name from first in status or to even change his name in order to rebuke him.

I cannot see Paul acting in the way that many scholars think that he did in this supposed “rebuke” of Peter the Apostle. I will continue to disagree. I believe that they are two different people.

Peter is a synonym for Cephas, and sorry, but I’ll take Jesus’ word over Anne Catherine Emmerich or Eusebius any day.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Peter is a synonym for Cephas, and sorry, but I’ll take Jesus’ word over Anne Catherine Emmerich or Eusebius any day.

Nobody is denying the validity of Jesus, I think you know that, I hope. The only thing that I am suggesting by what little evidence that I gave using the Church Fathers is that other sound testimonies point out that there could have been another disciple outside of the 12 named Cephas whom Paul was referring to. They are obviously the same name/word just different languages, but that does not mean that there were not more than one person with that name who followed Jesus. I think it was most likely St. Peter that Paul was talking about, but I don’t rule out the idea that St. Clement was relying on oral tradition (since he was so close to that generation).

 

[NotWorthy]

Nobody is denying the validity of Jesus, I think you know that, I hope. The only thing that I am suggesting by what little evidence that I gave using the Church Fathers is that other sound testimonies point out that there could have been another disciple outside of the 12 named Cephas whom Paul was referring to. They are obviously the same name/word just different languages, but that does not mean that there were not more than one person with that name who followed Jesus. I think it was most likely St. Peter that Paul was talking about, but I don’t rule out the idea that St. Clement was relying on oral tradition (since he was so close to that generation).

Why would Paul feel the need to declare that he chastised an obscure disciple. Wouldn’t he have to explain, since he mentioned Cephas only a few verses before, that he was talking of a different Cephas? Also, We know Peter was in Antioch.

 

[GailMac]

Dear SHW - Perhaps you should keep reading Galatians - “1 O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth: before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you?” newadvent.org/bible/gal003.htm

Maybe then you’ll not need to find another rock to place your faith in other than Peter who was the first Pope. Or are you already so far gone that you don’t believe Benedict XVI is the Pope? What other Apostles are you willing to admit are truely Apostles? Have you fallen away that far? I hope not.

Peace,

Gail

 

[COPLAND_3]

Why would Paul feel the need to declare that he chastised an obscure disciple. Wouldn’t he have to explain, since he mentioned Cephas only a few verses before, that he was talking of a different Cephas? Also, We know Peter was in Antioch.

Again, I don’t want to be misunderstood, I am only speaking as one who is saying that it could have been another, not by any means am I defending it. But as for him being an “obscure disciple”, if it was the Cephas other than Peter, then he was one of the 70 just as Barnabas was, and Paul basically lit him up as well as the “rest of the Jews (vs. 13)” while Paul making an example out of Cephas. Kind of like having a family with 10 brothers and sisters, who all have been evolved in mischief, but the mom taking one by the ear and giving him the beaten while the others watch in fear.

 

[SHW]

OOPS! ASB-CE should have been NAB-CE (New American Bible-Catholic Edition). Sorry about that. I goofed.

The original Greek translation has two different men’s names in the same “story” in Galatians 2:7-14 "2:7 alla tounantion idonteV oti pepisteumai to euaggelion thV akrobustiaV kaqwV petroV thV peritomhV

2:8 o gar energhsaV petrw eiV apostolhn thV peritomhV enhrghsen kai emoi eiV ta eqnh

2:9 kai gnonteV thn carin thn doqeisan moi iakwboV kai khfaV kai iwannhV oi dokounteV stuloi einai dexiaV edwkan emoi kai barnaba koinwniaV ina hmeiV eiV ta eqnh autoi de eiV thn peritomhn

2:11 ote de hlqen khfaV eiV antioceian kata proswpon autw antesthn oti kategnwsmenoV hn

2:14 all ote eidon oti ouk orqopodousin proV thn alhqeian tou euaggeliou eipon tw khfa emprosqen pantwn ei su ioudaioV uparcwn eqnikwV kai | ouk | ouci | ioudaikwV zhV pwV ta eqnh anagkazeiV ioudaizein"

Translation Note: petrw or petroV is Peter, khfaV or khfa is Cephas, iakwboV is James, iwannhV is John

John 1:42 is not really a factor for this particular discussion since both the name “Cephas” and the name “Peter” have the same exact meaning in two different languages which is “rock.” However, Paul used two different names in order to distinguish between two different men. There is no other compelling reason to use two different names in the same story.

I think that some scholars of yesteryear went to great lengths in order to “justify” Peter’s continued primacy after his supposed “venial sin” because they actually believed that it was Peter the Apostle who was rebuked.

That is why they came up with the “venial sin rationale” and their explanation for the supposed "re-naming of Peter to Cephas and their explanation for the change in the order of names (placing Cephas in the middle of James and John) instead of at the beginning of the list of names as Peter always was listed in every other Scripture passage which lists the Apostles’ names and this “Peter first” listing does support his primacy. If you notice, when we speak of Peter and Paul even today, Peter is always first before Paul. It is the Feast of Peter and Paul, not the Feast of Paul and Peter, etc.

The translation used for their studies could also have affected their reasoning. The KJV and some others have all of these names the same instead of the two different names. However, two different names, Peter and Cephas, are the correct translation.

I don’t think that some of these early scholars studied all of the other passages of Scripture which depicted Peter’s actions in other circumstances or they would have figured out that the cowardliness exhibited by “Cephas” in Galatians 2 does not fit “Peter” the Apostle’s character at all and Paul’s rebuke of “Cephas” in front of everyone does not fit what they all believed and taught about authority. (1 Timothy 5:17)

If it truly was Peter who sinned, which I don’t believe for even one second , then Paul would have spoken to him in private, and then Peter as head of the Apostles, would have made his own confession of error and his own correction of this error public himself. This was not Paul’s job to do for Peter and I cannot see Paul doing this at all.

However, a subordinate such as one of the 70 disciples is justifiably rebuked in front of others if in error. (Titus 2:15)

 

[SHW]

Dear SHW - Perhaps you should keep reading Galatians - “1 O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth: before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you?” newadvent.org/bible/gal003.htm

Maybe then you’ll not need to find another rock to place your faith in other than Peter who was the first Pope. Or are you already so far gone that you don’t believe Benedict XVI is the Pope? What other Apostles are you willing to admit are truely Apostles? Have you fallen away that far? I hope not.

Peace,
Gail

Gail,

I’m sorry but I do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. I am arguing for the primacy of Peter and vindicating him as such. I do not for even one second believe that Peter the Apostle, head of the Catholic Church, was the person that Paul rebuked in Galatians 2.