Little noted in our preaching is this
passage—
(Gal 2:11 ESV) But when Cephas [the apostle Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
The translation “stood condemned” is controversial, but it carries the weight of scholarly consensus.
The renderings of the NIV (“in the wrong”) and the NRSV (“self-condemned”) both soften the severity of Paul’s judgment; because Peter’s action was a betrayal of the gospel, Paul saw him as standing under God’s condemnation. …
At the same time, it also suggests that Paul could not assume the experience of sharing the eucharist as a basis for his broader argument about table fellowship. It would have been a powerful argument for Paul to say, “If you share the bread and wine with Gentiles at the table of the Lord, how can you refuse to eat ordinary meals together?” Paul’s silence on this point suggests that Peter, Barnabas, and other Jewish Christians were not celebrating the Lord’s supper with the Gentile Christians in Antioch.
Richard B. Hays, “The Letter to the Galatians,” in 2 Corinthians-Philemon (vol. 11 of New Interpreters Bible, Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 233-234.
The major theme of the unit is that the gospel mandates the formation of a new community in which there is no division between Jew and Gentile, a community in which Jews and Gentiles eat at one table together, not two separate tables. The speech of vv. 14b–21 supports this claim by arguing that right relation to God depends fundamentally on “the grace of God” (2:21), and not on observance of the ethnically particular signs of covenant membership (circumcision and food laws). This grace has been made effective through the death of Jesus Christ, which avails for Jew and Gentile without distinction (cf. Rom 3:21–31). Consequently, Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile believers at Antioch was, as Paul sees it, a symbolic rejection of God’s reconciling grace.
Richard B. Hays, “The Letter to the Galatians,” in 2 Corinthians-Philemon (vol. 11 of New Interpreters Bible, Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 231.
Peter actually considered the Gentile Christians to be saved. He just wouldn’t participate with them in the Lord’s Support or Love Feast — in order to keep the circumcision party happy — those Jews from Jerusalem who considered circumcision essential to salvation. He was being a politician. After all, what harm is there in yielding to the scruples of the circumcision party? Why not keep everyone happy? Why antagonize the Jews who’d been long-time members of the church just to eat a meal with a segment of the congregation?
Well, Paul saw things very differently. It wasn’t about politics and keeping the peace but the gospel. And the gospel declares the Gentiles saved by faith — without circumcision — and to act otherwise is to condone division of the body of Christ, encouraging the separation of Jews and Gentiles. It’s to refuse to trust God’s promise to save everyone with faith!
As a result, Paul declared Peter condemned! Damned. Not for doctrinal error but for refusing to be in real, meaningful, active fellowship with a segment of the church all to make some of the more conservative members happy — to allow them to continue to treat their brothers and sisters damned.
Now, in the modern church, we avoid this problem by having so many congregations that we only have to take communion or eat a meal with people who are exactly like us. And this is anti-gospel. Indeed, it risks condemnation — especially if our motivation is to keep our more legalistic brothers and sisters happy. And I find this a terrifying thought.
So anyway, the point today is that Peter — an apostle — fell from grace because, by his actions, he denied salvation by faith. He refused to trust in God’s promises to save all with faith.
On the translation of kataginōskō
Every time I bring up poor Peter in Galatians, my conclusions are challenged from a grammatical standpoint, and I admit that many English translations prefer to soften the language. It just seems so unthinkable that Peter could have been in a damned state as an apostle. But the grammatical arguments for “condemned” or “damned” are very strong.
The same Greek word appears in these other verses –
(1Jo 3:19-24 ESV) By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; 20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
The entire epistle is about whether the reader is lost or saved –
(1Jo 5:11-13 ESV) 11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
Numerous others passages in 1 John deal with very plainly with the question of individual salvation. The point of 3:20-21 is that the subjective state of our heart is not always a reliable indicator of our salvation (contrary to much evangelical preaching). Rather, we should feel confident in our salvation because we can see our obedience (not perfect obedience but a life lived based on a commitment to obey) and the fruit of the Spirit in us. And so the subject very much is damnation and salvation.
In the Septuagint, which always colors the NT’s use of Greek, we find –
(Deu 25:1-2 ESV) “If there is a dispute between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty, 2 then if the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with a number of stripes in proportion to his offense.”
More recently, in the apocryphal Ben Sirach or Ecclesiasticus (ca. 200-175 BC), we have –
(Sir 14:2 KJA) Blessed is he whose conscience hath not condemned him, and who is not fallen from his hope in the Lord.
(Sir 19:5 KJA) Whoso taketh pleasure in wickedness shall be condemned: but he that resisteth pleasures crowneth his life.
The evidence tends to pile up. I mean, the linguistic case from usage is overwhelming.
The Greek lexicons come to the same conclusion. BDAG, the most respected of them all, translates “condemn, convict.” Thayer’s refuses to go so far, however, but admits the meaning “condemn” in other places both scriptural and secular.
to find fault with, blame: … he had incurred the censure of the Gentile Christians; Luther rightly, es war Klage über ihn kommen (i. e. a charge had been laid against him; but others he stood condemned, see Meyer or Ellicott, in the place cited; cf. Alexander Buttmann (1873) sec. 134, 4, 8), Gal. 2:11; to accuse, condemn: … , 1 John 3:20f, with which cf. Sir. 14:2 … . (In these and other significance in Greek writings from (Aeschylus and) Herodotus down;
Thayer’s is an 1889 work. The more recent lexicons largely insist on “condemn.” Friberg translates “condemn, declare to be wrong, judge to be guilty.” Louw-Nida translates “to judge something to be bad – ‘to condemn.’”
The commentators understandably struggle a bit. As pointed out in the earlier post, Richard Hays, a world-class scholar of Paul, finds the case for “condemned” very strong.
Peter stood condemned (kategnōsmenos; less strongly in NIV, ‘was in the wrong’). He was acting not only against his conscience and against the clear revelation that he had received in Acts 10, but also against his past tradition and custom in Antioch.
R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale NTC 9; IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 115.
The clear sense of hypokrisis shows that Peter was taken to task for failing to have the courage of his real convictions; and it is for this reason that Paul says that Peter “stood condemned” (v. 11, RV, RSV, NASB).
Κατεγνωσμένος [kategnosmenos] does not mean “to be blamed” (AV), “clearly in the wrong” (NEB, NIV), or “condemned’ before God” (U. Wilckens, TDNT VIII: 568, n. 51). Rather it indicates that Peter was condemned by his conduct which was at variance with his own inner convictions (e.g., R. Bultmann, TDNT I: 715: O. Cullmann, TDNT VI: 110; W. Schneider, NIDNTT II: 365). For a different view see Barrett, Signs, 71.
Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 109.
This PERIPHRASTIC PLUPERFECT PASSIVE VERB speaks of something that had already happened, that had become a settled position and had been performed by the outside agent. This construction does not imply that Peter continued in this attitude. Also notice that the leader of the Apostolic group made a mistake. The Apostles were inspired to write trustworthy and eternal Scripture but this never implied that they did not have sin or did not make poor choices in other areas!
Robert James Utley, Paul’s First Letters: Galatians and I & II Thessalonians, Study Guide Commentary Series, (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 1997), Volume 11:21.
In short, teaching a works salvation, by word or by deed, is deadly, eternally dangerous. And very plainly, doing it to please the legalists among us is not an acceptable choice.
I mean, if Peter can lose his salvation over this issue, who among us should feel more secure than the apostle?
Romans 3
I know I’m going long, but please consider this further passage —
(Rom 3:8 ESV) 8 And why not do evil that good may come?– as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.
Paul teaches grace. God forgives the sins of the saved. And not surprisingly, just as is true today, to some, this sounds like teaching that sin is okay and obedience unnecessary. Therefore, Paul’s enemies accused him of exactly that.
Paul says that those who slandered Paul for teaching grace are justly condemned. Condemned! Not just mistaken. Not just out of fellowship. Damned.
Why? Because they deny salvation by faith, insisting on adding works to faith.
Not only was it Peter, but the other Jews with him, even Barnabus. I believe they all sinned because of fearing the Judaizers. They were in the wrong , it was a sin to withdraw their fellowship, Paul chastised them for it. Were they lost until they confessed and repented? Obviously if they had persisted in their error they would have been. Jesus once told Peter to “Get behind me Satan.” A strong statement indeed but was he lost at that point and in need of restoring? It just seems like to me if you make Peter, Barnabus, and others fallen from grace in that instance(they certainly weren’t teaching circumcision) but not living out what grace and gospel meant in that pressure moment(much like a lot of elders and preachers do when they try to appease the most vocal negatives in the church for fear of their displeasure) then we’re just back to in grace-out of grace-in grace-out of grace, something I have tried to teach against to those who have been taught that concept all their lives.
I’ve learned much from NT Wright with regard to Gal 2, and I heartily recommend his book “Justification” for everyone.
Here are some of his thoughts:
“…for Paul, ‘justification’, whatever else it included, always had in mind God’s declaration of membership, and that this always referred specifically to the coming together of Jews and Gentiles in faithful membership of the Christian family.
What, then, are the ‘works of the law’, by which one cannot be ‘justified’ in this sense? Again, the context is pretty clear. They are the ‘living like a Jew’ of 2:14, the separation from ‘Gentile sinners’ of 2:15. They are not, in other words, the moral ‘good works’ which the Reformation tradition loves to hate. They are the things that divide Jew from Gentile: specifically, in the context of this passage (and we have no right to read Galatians 2:16 other than in the context of verses 11–15), the ‘works of the law’ which specify, however different Jewish groups might have put it at the time, that ‘Jews do not eat with Gentiles’.4 What one might gain by such ‘works of the law’ is not a treasury of moral merit, but the assured status of belonging to God’s people, separated from the rest of humankind.
So what is the alternative? If we are ‘not justified by works of the law’, how are we ‘justified’? Paul’s answer opens up the now famous question of pistis Iēsou Christou, which can be translated either as ‘the faithfulness of Jesus Christ’ or as ‘faith in Jesus Christ’.5 For reasons I have given elsewhere, I have come to read the passage as follows: ‘we know that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah; so we came to believe in the Messiah, Jesus, so that we might be justified by the faithfulness of the Messiah, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no flesh shall be justified’. This fits together as follows.
‘The faithfulness of the Messiah’, in the sense described in the previous chapter—his faithfulness to the long, single purposes of God for Israel—is the instrument, the ultimate agency, by which ‘justification’ takes place. The Messiah’s faithful death, in other words, redefines the people of God, which just happens to be exactly what Paul says more fully in verses 19–20 (always a good sign). And the way in which people appropriate that justification, that redefinition of God’s people, is now ‘by faith’, by coming to believe in Jesus as Messiah. The achievement of Jesus as the crucified Messiah is the basis of this redefinition. The faith of the individual is what marks out those who now belong to him, to the Messiah-redefined family.
What is then added by the final clause of verse 16, which emphasizes once more what was said in the opening clause? ‘By works of the law no flesh shall be justified’: as in Romans 3:20, Paul quotes Psalm 143:2, though now writing ‘flesh’ (sarx) instead of ‘no living thing’, as in the Hebrew and Greek. He does not here explain things further, and we might be left to suppose that he is simply reinforcing the weight of the opening clause. ‘Works of the law’ cannot justify, because God has redefined his people through the faithfulness of the Messiah. But in Romans 3:20 Paul does explain the meaning of the quotation, by adding, ‘for through the law comes the knowledge of sin’. As always when he writes quickly and densely, it is risky to fill in the gaps in his argument, but this point really does seem to be in his mind here as well.
There are, then, two interlocking reasons why ‘works of the law cannot justify’. First, God has redefined his people through the faithfulness of the Messiah, and ‘works of the law’ would divide Jew from Gentile in a way that is now irrelevant. Second, ‘works of the law’ will never justify, because what the law does is to reveal sin. Nobody can keep it perfectly. The problem of Genesis 11 (the fracturing of humanity) is the full outworking of the problem of Genesis 3 (sin), and the promise to Abraham is the answer to both together.”
NT Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, page 97-98.
Read it. It doesn’t support what you are selling.
Monty,
Ask me this question again when we get to Heb 6:4-6, because you make a good point, but then the text certainly says Peter was condemned and he was obviously later restored, whereas Heb 6:4-6 seems to say this is impossible. So it’s a really good question I’ve wrestled with at some length (roughly 61 years). I think I have an understanding that is consistent with the text, but we need to get a few more posts into the topic first.
Kevin,
I heartily agree with your recommendation of “Justification.” A most excellent book. I would add Wright’s commentary on Romans in the New Interpreters Bible Commentary is invaluable (although not cheap).
Laymond wrote,
So Peter could not fall from grace? Not even possible? Judas did, and so being an apostle hardly grants one immunity. Besides, at this blog, we discuss scriptures with a high view of inspiration. If Paul said Peter stood condemned, he stood condemned.
Kevin,
Thanks for the commentary quotes. What is the BECNT? I’m sure I should be able to figure it out, but it’s not coming to me.
Jay,
BECNT is the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. I bought the entire series in Logos during a sale when each volume was $9. I’ve been very pleased with this series. Lots of great scholarship by very respected authors.
Jay said, “If Paul said Peter stood condemned, he stood condemned.”
Jay, when one accuses Peter of falling from grace, they are accusing God of ignoring the last request of his son before offering him up as a sacrifice.
Jhn 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Jhn 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. Jhn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Jhn 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
Jhn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: .
Jhn 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
I suppose the request for another comforter was denied also. A guide that would refresh their memory of what Jesus taught them. Or maybe God just left Peter out, the apostle that Jesus trusted with he keys to his church.
If Paul and Jay are right and the book of Hebrews is also right, that after you know right from wrong, and you intentionally do wrong, there is no more sacrifice for sins, then Peter must be in deep trouble at the day of judgment.
Jay said,”Besides, at this blog, we discuss scriptures with a high view of inspiration.”
Jay does that “high view” extend to what John wrote, or just to what Paul wrote.
After Simon the sorcerer was converted and baptized the tried to buy the gifts of healing from the apostles, but then in Acts 8 “But Peter said to him, “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.”
You cant repent of something you didn’t do and the only the repentance would be from the evil and consequence of it to which Simon said, ““Pray to the Lord for me, that none of the things which you have spoken may come upon me.”
Peter made Simon aware of his sin to which Simon was called on to change from.
Peter stood condemned for doing that which he knew to be wrong and of which Paul accused him of.
Let’s be clear that Paul didn’t condemn Peter, but rather Peter’s actions did. Just as David’s actions condemned him and the sins were later brought to light. That is why we are supposed to correct one another, because sometimes we need a wake up call to realize where we are at.
That is why we are supposed to correct one another, because sometimes we need a wake up call to realize where we are at.
That is what I said Dwight, surely Peter did not receive the “holy ghost ” that Jesus promised him, or he would have had a comforter to hold his feet to the fire/ remind him of what Jesus has said while Jesus was with him. Just hard for me to believe Peter fell from God’s Grace.
Put it this way, Solomon was the wisest man who did some very unwise things. Just because we know what we are supposed to do, doesn’t erase our self will and we can override God’s voice in our ear when we listen to our own. In I Cor. the saints had the gifts of the HS, but were told to be quiet when others were speaking. Just because we have guidance from the HS, doesn’t mean we have a lack of control over what we do. Now did Peter fall from God’s grace…who knows, after all he ran this course many times before and God still considered him worthy of continuation. Peter seems to be able to make a fool of himself and still be used by God. But then again Peter seems to be able to see the error he makes and not deny it as well. He makes mistakes and realizes them and that seems to move him closer to God. Now if he would have not taken Paul’s words to heart, then he would have dividing the saints. This was not what God wanted to happen. I don’t doubt that if Peter wouldn’t have made the decision to right himself that Paul would have mentioned it. I don’t think Peter fell, I think he stumbled and was caught by Paul, but even then Peter had access to God and the ability to pick himself back up by kneeling before God.