Posted on 09/26/2008 9:27:41 AM PDT by dangus
In Galatians, Paul boasts of boldly denouncing Cephas for allowing Judaizers from Jerusalem to bully Gentiles. This scene is often cited to undermine the claim of papal infallibility, asserting that Peter, whose was actually named “Cephas” by Christ, committed heresy. I’ve argued against this on the basis that the bible actually doesn’t tell us that Cephas proclaimed heresy, only that he committed the sin of allowing false teaching to go uncorrected. Certainly that is a common sin among recent church leaders.
No-one disputes the fact that Peter was really named “Cephas.” The gospel of John makes clear that “Peter” (or, originally, “Petros”) is merely a Greek translation of the Aramaic word, “Cephas”: “Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter).” (John 1:42) This is actually critical to Catholic apologists, since it clarifies the meaning of Matthew 16:18, which relates why Jesus calls Simon, “Peter.” (Some Protestant apologists assert that Matthew intended a distinction between “Petra” and “Petros”; since Jesus named Simon “Kephas,” no such distinction would be possible as Jesus actually uttered the words.)
But is the Cephas in Galatians really the Simon Cephas? To my surprise, many in the Catholic Church since the first century have argued it is not, including St. Anselm, St. Clement of Rome, and Eusebius. Rather, Cephas (in Hebrew, Caiaphas) was another one of the seventy disciples.
There are several problems with identifying the Cephas of Galatians with Peter:
Why would Paul refer to Peter as Cephas in Galatians 2:9? He had just twice given the name of the man the gospel was entrusted to as Peter (Galatians 2:7, 8). And no-one else, apart from John’s aforementioned clarification, refers to Peter as Cephas. Why use two different names, without any hint that the same person is intended both times?
Wherever apostles are listed, Simon Peter is almost always listed first. This occurs dozens of times, even when Simon is plainly not the first chronologically. Occasionally, the apostles are even referred to as “Peter, and the rest of the disciples.” In Galatians, however, Peter is listed among other disciples, as “James and Cephas and John.” In fact, Paul neglects mention of Cephas at all. Lastly, interpreting Cephas Galatians 2 as referring to Peter presents an odd contradiction with Acts 15. In Acts, Paul and Barnabas return from Antioch to settle the matter of Judaizing once and for all. No mention is made of Cephas coming with them, only that “certain other of them” also came. When they arrive in Jerusalem, Peter is there to take up their cause. Acts bears no mention of any prior conflict or hypocrisy on the part of Peter.
On the other hand, it cannot be said with certainty, from strictly biblical evidence, that Cephas is not Peter. He is not ascribed any other identity. And although Paul is unique in calling Peter “Cephas,” in at least two instances (one in this same epistle) Paul plainly does mean Peter when he writes of “Cephas”: Galatians 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 5:15.
Modern Catholic hierarchical methods also provide an explanation why, this one time, Peter isn’t listed first: Paul brings report of the moral need of a clarification of doctrine; Peter pronounces doctrine; and James, the local bishop, issues a ruling as to how to apply the doctrine. Since Peter was “visiting” James’ diocese, James has primacy even though Peter would be “first among equals.” Otherwise, as occurs elsewhere throughout the New Testament, it would be appropriate to refer to Peter first.
Whether Cephas is Peter or not, the teaching that Christians aren’t bound by Jewish customs is Peter’s own. In neither case does Cephas commit heresy, only sinfulness, so If Cephas was Peter, the incident speaks to Peter’s impeccability (absence of moral fault), not his infallibility (absence of falseness). Whereas Catholics alone hold that Peter’s infallibility was unique and borne in an office which could be succeeded, it is quite dangerous to any Christian’s faith to allow that the author of sacred scripture may have been a heretic.
Peter was spanked in Acts 10. No need to spin that with many words.
Amazing.
Face it, Peter was to be blamed, and Paul called him out on it. There's no need to try to invent some other Cephas out of whole cloth just to defend unscriptural doctrines invented hundreds of years after the NT was written.
Whether Cephas is Peter or not, the teaching that Christians aren’t bound by Jewish customs is Peter’s own. In neither case does Cephas commit heresy, only sinfulness, so If Cephas was Peter, the incident speaks to Peter’s impeccability (absence of moral fault), not his infallibility (absence of falseness). Whereas Catholics alone hold that Peter’s infallibility was unique and borne in an office which could be succeeded, it is quite dangerous to any Christian’s faith to allow that the author of sacred scripture may have been a heretic.
First, in verse 11, St. Paul says: "But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." I find it interesting that he says "I opposed him to his face." This implies, to me, at least, that he was dressing-down someone who normally outranked him. He would not make a point of a statement implying boldness ("to his face") if he were dealing with just any old mucky-muck. I, for one, do not refer to a rebuke of my daughter, for example, as one I make "to her face"; but if I were to rebuke my boss' boss, say, then, yes, I very well might make a point of mentioning that I "rebuked him to his face." No. It is clear that St. Paul is rebuking even Peter himself! And he has the courage of his convictions to do it right to his face.
Second, in verse 14, we have two more pieces of information. Here's the verse: "But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" This Cephas that St. Paul is referring to is a Jew. I am not aware of any other Jew who had the name "Rock," either in Hebrew/Aramaic, or in Greek, or some other language translated into Greek. It was meant to be of singular significance by Christ, and it would be "cheeky" at best for some other Christian to be using it at the same time Simon Peter yet lived. It would be even cheekier for a Jewish Christian to be using it, since it would obviously not be his given name, and he would have had to deliberately adopt it. The second piece of evidence from verse 14 is the fact that this Cephas is "compelling" the Gentiles to live like Jews. Really, how many Jewish Christians were running around in St. Paul's day who had authority sufficient to be ordering the Gentile converts around on various matters? How many fewer than that were there who also were known as "Cephas," but were not Simon Peter himself?
To me, this is a no-brainer. St. Paul has to screw-up the courage to rebuke someone of higher station than himself. This person he is rebuking, therefore, is presumably of Apostle rank. He is specifically referred to as being Jewish, and he is specifically rebuked as one with authority over Gentile converts. Who on earth could all of this add-up as referring to other than Simon bar Jonah, AKA Simon Peter, AKA "Cephas"? And who among Jewish Christians of the First century would have had the nerve to "co-opt" the name given to Simon bar Jonah by Jesus Himself? And, if there were such a personage, of such high rank, why haven't we seen any other evidence of his existence?
Correct. Peter was a little slow to fully understand what the new covenant was all about. (Acts 10+11)
1. What do you mean Peter was spanked? Are you mixing up chapters? Acts 10 Peter takes it upon himself (at the command of Christ, of course) to overturn thousands of years of Jewish practice and law, and does so with commanding authority so that he is obeyed!
2. Spin? I think I did a pretty good job of pointing out the pros and cons of an article ...
3 ... that I also demonstrated wasn’t a defense of Catholic doctrine. (Catholic doctrine survives intact either way this one goes.)
I just came across what I thought to be a very surprising line of reasoning.
>> Face it, Peter was to be blamed, and Paul called him out on it. There’s no need to try to invent some other Cephas out of whole cloth just to defend unscriptural doctrines invented hundreds of years after the NT was written.
<<
Wow! It never ceases to amaze me how people argue with posts they’ve never even read, based on the presumption “so-and-so is a different creed then me, so if I believe this, I can presume he means the opposite of this.”
I draw your attention again to the summation of the article:
Whether Cephas is Peter or not, the teaching that Christians aren’t bound by Jewish customs is Peter’s own. In neither case does Cephas commit heresy, only sinfulness, so If Cephas was Peter, the incident speaks to Peter’s impeccability (absence of moral fault), not his infallibility (absence of falseness). Whereas Catholics alone hold that Peter’s infallibility was unique and borne in an office which could be succeeded, it is quite dangerous to any Christian’s faith to allow that the author of sacred scripture may have been a heretic.
In what way could you possibly characterize that as as a try to “invent some other Cephas out of whole cloth just to defend unscriptural doctrines invented hundreds of years after the NT was written” ?
“Whether Cephas is Peter or not, the teaching that Christians aren’t bound by Jewish customs is Peter’s own.”
It would seem you’ve missed the reading of Peter’s vision in Acts. Peter had no authority to teach such a thing until it was given him.
>> It would seem you’ve missed the reading of Peter’s vision in Acts. Peter had no authority to teach such a thing until it was given him. <<
Yes, yes, yes. We all agree that Peter had received such authority from God. Can we dispense with the gotach games? Peter had no evidence, but his own word, that God had ordained such things. Even after the fact: If Simon Magus had said or done such things, they would not have called Cornelius’ household’s ecstatic prayers miraculous.
>> Peter was a little slow to fully understand what the new covenant was all about. (Acts 10+11) <<
Slow? Yes. But he was the first mortal man to do so.
Not exactly! Paul had to instruct him on matter.
He most certainly did have proof beyond his own word as was clear at Pentecost. You simply have presented a question that has been well answered and deny the answer.
Dangus, you've got your own agenda and you can't support it. In fact, you're now becoming ridiculous.
Well, I, for one, have no trouble admitting that Cephas needed correcting from St. Paul in the matters discussed in Galatians, even while most certainly acknowledging that it was "that" Cephas - Simon Peter - who is being addressed. In fact, it seems clear enough to me that the passage provides more evidence, not less, for Catholic claims about Peter's office. Look at my post 6, if you like, to see what I mean.
Besides that, though, I'm not particularly sure that dangus is even "sort of" insisting on this Cephas not being Simon Peter. He is only posting it as an interesting theory. It is hardly necessary for the Church to "invent" this idea, and certainly not to buttress doctrines "invented hundreds of years after the NT was written," for there are no such doctrines to begin with.
>> Not exactly! Paul had to instruct him on matter. <<
Uh, no. Go read Acts 10-11. Peter got it first. He then maybe failed to live up to it, but he got it.
>> Dangus, you’ve got your own agenda and you can’t support it. In fact, you’re now becoming ridiculous. <<
And what would that agenda be? Mind-reading and name-calling so soon? The funny thing is that post was inspired by me citing Galatians 2 in another post that Cephas was Peter. In doing so, I bumped into the assertion that he wasn’t. I was intrigued by something that contradicted my assertion, so I shared it with everyone.
What’s funny is that even though I explain how this notion is irrelevant to Catholic doctrine, and even post the refutations to this argument in the original post (which I found relatively persuasive), I get attacked for having an agenda.
Attacked? What, then, is the purpose of the post? If ant?
>> Attacked? What, then, is the purpose of the post? <<
Does EVERY post on FR religion forum have to have a belligerent, sectarian agenda? Besides, even if you insist on TURNING every post into a sectarian war, can’t you do better than mind-reading and name-calling?
>>If ant? <<
I can’t guess what you mean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.