Galatians 2:11, Peter, and OSAS

[KingsGambit]

Galatians 2:11 in the NRSV reads:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.

Of course, Cephas refers to Peter. Does self-condemned literally refer to damnation? And if so, what do advocates of once saved-always saved make of this? Was Peter not saved until this point (at least 15 years after the resurrection)?

[One Bad Pig]

I don't think even most proponents of conditional security would consider that damnation.

[KingsGambit]

The relevant Greek word here is kataginōskō, which Strong's defines as "to find fault with/blame", or "to accuse/condemn". If this sense is accurate, then translations like the NIV that translate it as "condemned" would seem to be unfortunate.

One might make a case for Peter's actions having salvific implications based on Galatians 1:6-10, but I do not immediately feel confident saying he would have fallen within this category of preaching another gospel.

[Zymologist]

The relevant Greek word here is kataginōskō, which Strong's defines as "to find fault with/blame", or "to accuse/condemn". If this sense is accurate, then translations like the NIV that translate it as "NIV" would seem to be unfortunate.

One might make a case for Peter's actions having salvific implications based on Galatians 1:6-10, but I do not immediately feel confident saying he would have fallen within this category of preaching another gospel.

Did you mean to put something else here?

[KingsGambit]

Did you mean to put something else here?

Oops. Yes, I meant "condemned".

[Soyeong]

Galatians 2:11 in the NRSV reads:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.

Of course, Cephas refers to Peter. Does self-condemned literally refer to damnation? And if so, what do advocates of once saved-always saved make of this? Was Peter not saved until this point (at least 15 years after the resurrection)?

[mikewhitney]

The relevant Greek word here is kataginōskō, which Strong's defines as "to find fault with/blame", or "to accuse/condemn". If this sense is accurate, then translations like the NIV that translate it as "condemned" would seem to be unfortunate.

One might make a case for Peter's actions having salvific implications based on Galatians 1:6-10, but I do not immediately feel confident saying he would have fallen within this category of preaching another gospel.

There are actually two relevant words. The commentary by Andrew Das observes that κατεγνωσμενος ην go together to show that the condemnation was something of the past :"The verb ην is an imperfect, which, with the perfect participle of καταγινώσκω, functions as a pluperfect with the sense of a past existing state. [Das,Galatians, 196 with references in note 3 to Longnecker, Galatians 72; Burton, Galatians, 103; likewise Porter, Verbal Aspect, 469-70, on the pluperfect equivalency: The periphrasis stresses Peter's condition at the time of the confrontation.]

You can review the condemnation word at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...=greek#lexicon

The Tufts link shows some equivalents as 'despised' or 'foibles' -- However I am not sure if these are properly matched to the word in Gal 2:11. (I basically mean that these definitions show flexibility of use.)

The NRSV is probably decent here. Paul nor Peter could actually sentence themselves before God as guilty. As such, Paul's statement, himself not being a judge, would suggest a less formal use of these words than if this were a criminal court.

In the past I tended to see the English word 'condemned' as meaning, in many cases, the idea of 'feeling guilty.' I was wrong to apply this to the reading of scripture, in general. But maybe in this case it is the correct idea.

[Paprika]

If this sense is accurate, then translations like the NIV that translate it as "condemned" would seem to be unfortunate.

Not at all. It is only unfortunate that certain Christians would have such a narrow view of the semantic range of 'condemn'.