3

[Gal 2:11 NASB] (11) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

[Gal 2:11 MGNT] (11) ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν

Thayer's Greek Lexicon STRONGS NT 2607: καταγινώσκω καταγινώσκω; perfect passive participle κατεγνωσμένος; to find fault with, blame: κατεγνωσμένος ἦν, 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) § 134, 4, 8), Galatians 2:11; to accuse, condemn: τίνος, any one, 1 John 3:20f, with which cf. Sir. 14:2 μακάριος, οὗ οὐ κατέγνω ἡ ψυχή αὐτοῦ. (In these and other significance in Greek writings from (Aeschylus and) Herodotus down; (see Ellicott as above).) THAYER’S GREEK LEXICON, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved. Used by permission. BibleSoft.com

These are the only NT usages:

[Gal 2:11 NKJV] (11) Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;

[1Jo 3:20-21 NKJV] (20) For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. (21) Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God.

1

This might be inferred from context as well as different translations for that crucial word.

καταγινώσκω (kataginōskō) 'to condemn' (G2607) to condemn, convict; (pass.) to be in the wrong, condemned

LSJ dictionary
καταγιγνώσκω, Ionic dialect and later καταγηρ-γῑνώσκω, future -γνώσομαι[Refs 5th c.BC+]:—remark, observe, esp. something to one's prejudice, with genitive person: __I generally, καταγνοὺς τοῦ γέροντος τοὺς τρόπους having observed his foibles, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; πολλήν γέ μου δυστυχίαν κατέγνωκας I have been very unfortunate by your way of it, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; οὐκ ἐπιτήδεα κατά τινος κ. having formed unfavourable prejudices against one, [Refs 5th c.BC+]: with infinitive, of an unfavourable judgement, κ. ἑαυτοῦ μὴ περιέσεσθαι [Refs 5th c.BC+] despising us because.. [Refs 5th c.BC+]: with participle, κ. τινὰ πράττοντα [Refs 5th c.BC+]:—passive, to be judged unfavourably, lightly esteemed, παρολιγωρεῖσθαι καὶ καταγινώσκεσθαι [Refs 2nd c.BC+]; κατεγνωσμένος despised, [Refs 2nd c.AD+] __II with accusative criminis, lay as a charge against a person, κ. ἑωυτῶν ἀνανδρείην [Refs 5th c.BC+]; δειλίαν, δωροδοκίαν κ. τινός, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; πολλὴν μανίαν, μωρίαν, [Refs 5th c.BC+]passive, καταγνωσθεὶς δειλίαν being convicted of cowardice, [Refs 1st c.BC+]self-condemned, [NT] __II.2 with genitive criminis, παρανόμων κ. τινός [Refs 4th c.BC+] pronounce a verdict of murder against.. , Legal cited in [Refs 5th c.BC+]; μὴ καταγιγνώσκωμεν τὸ (perhaps τοῦ) μηδὲν εἰρηκέναι τὸν ἀποφηνάμενον [Refs 5th c.BC+] __II.3 with infinitive, κ. σφῶν αὐτῶν, ἑαυτοῦ ἀδικεῖν, charge oneself with.. , [Refs 5th c.BC+]passive, καταγνωσθεὶς νεώτερα πρήσσειν being suspected of doing, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; κ. αὐθέντης (i.e. εἶναι) [Refs 5th c.BC+]; to be detected, ἔν τινι [Refs 3rd c.AD+]; also κατέγνωσται μελίκρητον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὡς καταγυιοῖ τοὺς πίνοντας [Refs 5th c.BC+] __II.4 with genitive person only, condemn, τοῦ ἀνθρώπου [Refs 5th c.BC+] __III with accusative poenae, give judgement or sentence against a person, κ. τινὸς θάνατον pass sentence of death on one, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; Μηδισμοῦ κ. τινὸς θάνατον for Medism, [Refs 5th c.BC+]: with infinitive, κ. αὐτοῦ ἀποτεῖσαι τὰ Χρήματα [Refs 4th c.BC+]; later θάνατον, φυγὴν κ. κατά τινος, [Refs 1st c.BC+]:—passive, θάνατός τινος κατέγνωστο [Refs 5th c.BC+] they were condemned, [Refs 5th c.BC+] __III.2 decide a suit, δίκην [Refs 5th c.BC+]:— passive, [Refs 5th c.BC+]

And this can be rendered as

NET: But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.

YLT: And when Peter came to Antioch, to the face I stood up against him, because he was blameworthy,

From the context (that later in the text is explained) we can see that Paul very heavily criticises Peter for doing the 'right' thing before – behaving like Paul and eating together with all gentile Christians – and going back on that when more traditionally oriented missionaries came with their Jerusalem, more Jewish/Judeo-Christian interpretation of the 'right' religion and the 'right' behaviour.

The funny thing here is that it might be read as a double entendre: Peter was sitting between two chairs and couldn't make it right for everyone. He was therefore condemned/blamed by the James-people for doing it like Paul and then also by Paul for doing what the James-people wanted of him.

Paul the outsider was accepted into theJewish-Christianity community; the second section (2: 1-10) shows how Paul's gospel and mission were officially recognized by the Jerusalem authorities against the opposition; the third section shows how the original agreements were broken, partly as the result of historical developments, partly by human failure, especially of Peter.

Paul contends that he has faithfully maintained the same position which he had always defended and which had been approved by theJerusalem authorities and indeed by God himself.

The facts are simple: for reasons not spelled out Cephas had come to Antioch and taken up table fellowship with the Gentile Christians, and perhaps even the Gentile way of life altogether. For whatever reason, this was considered proper by all people present.

Then, again for reasons unknown, a delegation of "men from James" arrived. Pressured by them, Cephas and the other Jewish Christians reversed themselves and withdrew from the fellowship with their Gentile fellow Christians. They took up again the Jewish way of life, especially the part of ritual separation from the unclean. Paul did not follow the other Jewish Christians' action, but stayed with the Gentiles and confronted Cephas in an open debate.

The result of this confrontation is unknown. It appears that the break between Paul and the other Jewish-Christian missionaries, including his former mentor Barnabas, was irreparable.

–– Hans Dieter Betz: "Galatians", Hermeneia –– A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1979.

| improve this answer | |
  • The gloss you supply appears to simply be from Strong's Concordance. Unlike a Lexicon/Dictionary it doesn't supply information about the Koine language, only about how the KJV used the word. So it is a circular reference and should not be relied upon as a source on this site. So would you say that Paul was essentially accusing Peter of a sin of cowardice and "denying the LORD" in some sense - straying from grace into Torah, etc? IE: Something serious? – Ruminator Aug 11 '19 at 22:45
  • @Ruminator It's twofold: In Paul's account Peter essentially broke the 'apostle to the gentile approved by Jerusalem council agreement'; and he went back to Jewish rules (the law). The cowardice is just the cream on top of the polemic. – LаngLаngС Aug 11 '19 at 22:50
  • Okay, thanks... – Ruminator Aug 11 '19 at 22:53
1

In Galatians 2:11 what does Paul mean when he says that Peter “stood condemned”?

Galatians 2:11-14 (NASB)

Peter (Cephas) Opposed by Paul

11 "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he [a]stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from [b]James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing [c]the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not [d]straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Peter became settled in the city Antioch where many gentiles became Christians, he freely socialized and used to eat with them. However, when representatives from James, from the Jerusalem congregation visited Antioch, these men were Jewish Christians who still disliked to socialize with gentiles.

What did Peter do? (Gal. 2:12-13)

He began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing [c]the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

Obviously Peter was afraid of offending these visitors, so he withdrew and no longer ate with the Gentile Christians By doing this he went against the very principles that he earlier defended. Other Jews were also influenced and joined him in hypocrisy, pretending to do something that they really did not believe. In other words, the peer pressure had made Peter a pretender who rejected his own principles.

Peter was soundly corrected​, in public,​by the apostle Paul because he "stood condemned." Suppose you let peer pressure influence you in a moment of weakness. If you do something wrong, how will you feel about it later? Won’t your conscience condemn you?

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.