Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[ViaCrucis]

Impossible? You'd have to talk to Matthew to find out why it is written that way.

Simon bar Jonah was a boy, not a girl. That's how names worked/work in Greek. Male names are in the masculine case, female names are in the feminine case.

Petros is masculine.
Petra is feminine.

It's the same reason that we don't generally name boys "Jennifer" or "Julia" or "Susan"; or name girls "Kevin", "Kenneth" or "Thomas".

It's why the Aramaic Kepha is transliterated as Kephas in Greek. The final -s is required to make it a masculine name. It's the same reason why our Lord's name is rendered as Iesous in Greek, with a final -s, to make the name masculine in Greek.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Trusting in Him]

Jesus renames Simon (Jewish name Simeon), Simon is how it is written in the greek, but not so in the hebrew. Jesus gives him the name Peter (which was Petros in the greek). Now comes the detective work. What does the name of Simeon mean?

In Jacob’s final blessing to his sons on his deathbed, in Genesis 49, he finally condemns the actions of Simeon, saying: “their swords are weapons of violence. Let me not enter their council, let me not join their assembly, for they have killed men in their anger and hamstrung oxen as they pleased. Cursed by their anger, so fierce, and their fury, so cruel! I will scatter them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel” (5-7). Because of this deed, Simeon is to be scattered, and his descendants will have no land of their own.

At the beginning of the exodus, the Simeonites number about 59,300. By the time they are ready to enter the Promised Land, their number has fallen to 22,200. When the land is apportioned in the Book of Joshua, they are only given a few cities. The tribe of Simeon only survives a few generations and is ultimately absorbed by the tribe of Judah, thereby effectively erasing any trace of Simeon. The Simeonites are mentioned in I Chronicles, but for all practical purposes, they are scattered and never own their own portion of land.

Jesus renames Simon and by doing so, gives him a new destiny and a new character, his curse in removed and He is now to be solid and immovable like a rock.

Now lets look at the greek. In the greek peter is petros, or a stone which also means a rock, but petra which also sounds like petros is a solid and immovable rock these two words are retained in the latin, where petros is translated as saxum and petra is translated as rupes, or scopulus.

Thou art Peter (petros) and upon this rock (petra), I will build my church.

References: Page 304 Figures of speech used in the bible (expained and illustrated) E.W. Bullinger

online bible study/characters/simeon

 

[prodromos]

Why did Jesus give the name "rock" to a man he'd just met ... in fact it was the very first thing he ever said to him!

They hadn't just met.

 

[DeFyYing]

Simon bar Jonah was a boy, not a girl. That's how names worked/work in Greek. Male names are in the masculine case, female names are in the feminine case.

Petros is masculine.
Petra is feminine.

It's the same reason that we don't generally name boys "Jennifer" or "Julia" or "Susan"; or name girls "Kevin", "Kenneth" or "Thomas".

It's why the Aramaic Kepha is transliterated as Kephas in Greek. The final -s is required to make it a masculine name. It's the same reason why our Lord's name is rendered as Iesous in Greek, with a final -s, to make the name masculine in Greek.

-CryptoLutheran

Sorry I don't mean to derail the thread, just wanted to say it's nice to see other Evangelical Catholics

 

[parousia70]

I don't think it matters whether Christ is referring to Peter as a rock. It's a metaphor to establish that Peter will help to build the faith, which he did.

Jesus is the King, and He bestowed upon Peter the position of His first "prime minister" when He called him ROCK.
Jesus clearly gave St. Peter "the keys of the kingdom" (Mt 16:18-19), and the power invested in Peter was the same as when the O.T. kings bestowed the keys on their prime ministers. Please read Isaiah 22:15-24 to see what power was invested in the prime minister of Israel's king.
Jesus didn't invent the notion of "giving the Keys of the kingdom" right there on the spot... it is rooted in the Old testament practice of what the King of Israel Bestowed upon His prime Minister.

How that would automatically transfer to a line of future popes I don't quite get. I think the whole point of the Old Testament seems to be that man can't be trusted to rule themselves theologically.

Just as Jehovah Set up a governmental structure for OT Israel, Jesus is setting up His Governmental Structure for NT Israel, the Church.

All the apostles passed on their ordination to the bishops. But Peter's ordination was one of being the King's prime minister (Mt 16:18-19), as was true of men like Eliakim and Shebna in O.T. times (see Isa 22:15-24).

In the granting of the "Keys" to Peter (Matt 16:18-19/Isa 22:15-25), the appointment of the new 12 patriarchs (Matt 19:28; 10:1-4; Rev 21:12-14), and the ordination of bishops/elders and deacons, Jesus re-created Israel under the terms and conditions of the New Covenant order. Christ re-instituted the familiar leadership offices from Israel's history, and established the Twelve who expanded the Bishopric/Episcopate for New Israel. They went about ordaining men to offices in every city by the laying on of hands, and commissioned those appointees to continue this same practice also by the laying on of hands (a cardinal NT doctrine according to Hebrews 6:1-2). The establishment of the authorized bishopric can be traced throughout the New Testament scriptures, and is especially highlighted in Acts and the letters to the Bishops Titus and Timothy. The authorized government of New Israel is evidenced in Holy Scripture, and was maintained from Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus and those that followed.

 

[Kettriken]

Petros is "pebble" , Petra is "foundation stone".

Thank you for this distinction. Calling Peter the pebble upon which he would build a church is very in keeping with Christ's formula of turning the world's power structure on its head.

 

[ozso]

If Jesus was saying Peter was the rock upon which His church would be built, he didn't say anything about successor rocks. He didn't say Peter was the first of many rocks or anything of the sort that I know of.

As a side note, I have to wonder if that was the case, why each successor wasn't called the rock ie Peter II, Peter III, Peter IV etc.

 

[Buzzard3]

Can you tell us?

Yes. Are you saying you don't know?

 

[Buzzard3]

I'm confused. Why should this be a problem for protestants (or any other related sect)?

Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas/Peter, which means "rock" ... and before Jesus even got to know him?

 

[Buzzard3]

Look, anyone around this conversation long enough knows that there are literally volumes of literature written in support of both sides of this discussion. In the end we all have to weigh this claim in light of the larger discussion on the Primacy of Peter and how that looked historically. I don't feel that the claim holds much water when looked at how things actually seemed to focus in the Church pre-Middle ages. Rome just did not have the reach that the RCC want's to portray that it did. It seems to be, at best, a "First among equals" situation.

The explanation of the "rock" being the "Christ" fits the reality of the situation much better than an imperialistic claim of headship.

Why do you think Jesus changed Simon's name to Cephas/Peter (which means "rock") the very moment they first met?

 

[prodromos]

Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas/Peter, which means "rock" ... and before Jesus even got to know him?

As a Catholic you should know that Simon and Jesus were well acquainted before Jesus called him to follow Him.

 

[tampasteve]

Why do you think Jesus changed Simon's name to Cephas/Peter (which means "rock") the very moment they first met?

He didn't. They had been in acquaintance for quite some time by that point. Further, as the previous posts from other members point out, the name Cephas does not necessarily (or even likely) point to Peter in the passage in question.

 

[Buzzard3]

Post deleted

 

[Buzzard3]

He didn't. They had been in acquaintance for quite some time by that point.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The account in John 1 makes it clear that when Jesus changed Simon's name to Cephas/Peter, it was the very first time they met:

"One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone)" - John 1:40-42

 

[Hammster]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The account in John 1 makes it clear that it was the very first time Peter met Jesus:

"One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone)" - John 1:40-42

So He knew his name.

That’s how we know that Peter was known.

 

[Buzzard3]

As a Catholic you should know that Simon and Jesus were well acquainted before Jesus called him to follow Him.

The account in John 1 makes it clear that when Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, it was the very first time they met:

"One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. [9] You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone)" - John 1:40-42

 

[Buzzard3]

So He knew his name.

That’s how we know that Peter was known.

If Simon already knew Jesus, why did Andrew, immediately after learning from John the Baptist who Jesus was, go and find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah"?

Then the account says Andrew "brought him (Simon) to Jesus", which is obviously describing an initial introduction.

Do you think Jesus, being God, might have known Simon's name before they met.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jesus renames Simon (Jewish name Simeon), Simon is how it is written in the greek, but not so in the hebrew. Jesus gives him the name Peter (which was Petros in the greek). Now comes the detective work. What does the name of Simeon mean?

In Jacob’s final blessing to his sons on his deathbed, in Genesis 49, he finally condemns the actions of Simeon, saying: “their swords are weapons of violence. Let me not enter their council, let me not join their assembly, for they have killed men in their anger and hamstrung oxen as they pleased. Cursed by their anger, so fierce, and their fury, so cruel! I will scatter them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel” (5-7). Because of this deed, Simeon is to be scattered, and his descendants will have no land of their own.

At the beginning of the exodus, the Simeonites number about 59,300. By the time they are ready to enter the Promised Land, their number has fallen to 22,200. When the land is apportioned in the Book of Joshua, they are only given a few cities. The tribe of Simeon only survives a few generations and is ultimately absorbed by the tribe of Judah, thereby effectively erasing any trace of Simeon. The Simeonites are mentioned in I Chronicles, but for all practical purposes, they are scattered and never own their own portion of land.

Jesus renames Simon and by doing so, gives him a new destiny and a new character, his curse in removed and He is now to be solid and immovable like a rock.

Now lets look at the greek. In the greek peter is petros, or a stone which also means a rock, but petra which also sounds like petros is a solid and immovable rock these two words are retained in the latin, where petros is translated as saxum and petra is translated as rupes, or scopulus.

Thou art Peter (petros) and upon this rock (petra), I will build my church.

References: Page 304 Figures of speech used in the bible (expained and illustrated) E.W. Bullinger

online bible study/characters/simeon

The Hebrew and Aramaic form would be Shimon (Shim'on in Aramaic), which was Hellenized as both Simeon and Simon in the Septuagint and New Testament. So Simeon and Simon are both Hellenizations of Shimon/Shim'on.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hammster]

If Simon already knew Jesus, why did Andrew, immediately after learning from John the Baptist who Jesus was, go and find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah"?

Then the account says Andrew "brought him (Simon) to Jesus", which is obviously describing an initial introduction.

Know who Jesus was as a person, and knowing Him as Messiah, are not the same thing. His own cousin didn’t know.

Do you think Jesus, being God, might have known Simon's name before they met.

Actually, I think it can be argued that Jesus only knew what the Father and Spirit conveyed to Him. Regardless, there’s nothing in the text that suggests it was, by necessity, a first meeting.

 

[prodromos]

The account in John 1 makes it clear that when Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, it was the very first time they met:

How odd that you, as a Catholic, would argue your personal interpretation of Scripture over the Tradition of the Church.