Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[Buzzard3]

Regardless, there’s nothing in the text that suggests it was, by necessity, a first meeting.

Amazing.

Here are a few (non-Catholic) commentaries that support my view that John 1:42 describes the very first time Jesus and Simon Peter met. (emphasis mine throughout):

BibleRef.com:
"John 1:29–42 is a conversation between Jesus and John the Baptist, and records the moment when Jesus recruits His first two disciples ... The Baptist tells two of his followers, John and Andrew, to go and follow Jesus. They, in turn, INTRODUCE JESUS TO PETER."

BibleStudyTools.com: " Christ not only calls Simon by his present name, AT FIRST SIGHT OF HIM, but tells him what his future name should be ..."

StudyLight.org:
"The Lord's perfect understanding of Peter's character THE MOMENT HE SAW HIM was commented upon by Ryle, thus:

Our Lord here displayed his perfect knowledge of all persons, names, and things. He needed not that any should tell him who and what a person was. Such knowledge was supposed by the Jews to be a peculiar attribute of the Messiah. He was to be one of "quick understanding" (Isaiah 11:3).
It is a peculiar attribute of God, who alone knows the hearts of men. Our Lord's perfect knowledge of all hearts was one among many proofs of his divinity."

EnduringWord.com:
"Andrew met Jesus, and then THEN WANTED HIS BROTHER TO MEET JESUS. Each time Andrew is mentioned in the Gospel of John, he is bringing someone to Jesus (also at John 6:8 and 12:22).

WorkingPreacher.org:
"Andrew has been found by Eternal Life and what does he do? He immediately testifies that Jesus is the Messih ... and invites his brother Simon to come and see/encounter Jesus for himself."

Bible.org:
"Jesus’ opening words to Peter must have been a bit jarring (1:42), “‘You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter).” How would you feel if the FIRST WORDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF SOMEONE YOU JUST MET were to change your name?"

St-Takla.org:
"He brought him to Jesus; would not undertake to instruct him himself, but brought him to the fountain-head, persuaded him to come to Christ and INTRODUCED HIM ... It should seem that Peter was UTTERLY A STRANGER to Christ"

PastorSings.com:
"And the instant Jesus meets Simon, he gives him a new name: Peter, or “Rock.”

Actually, I think it can be argued that Jesus only knew what the Father and Spirit conveyed to Him.

The Samaritan woman Jesus met at the well was a stranger, yet he told her, "you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband" (John 4). Later, that woman told everyone, "Come, see a Man who told me all things that I ever did".
Jesus demonstrated his omniscience again the first time he met Nathanael. Jesus said to him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!" Nathanael said to Him, "How do You know me?"" (John 1:47-49).
So it cannot be argued (as you do) that
Jesus knew Simon's name and that of his father (John 1:42) only because Jesus had already met him and knew him..

 

[Buzzard3]

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

Sorry, I don't follow. Please explain.

 

[Buzzard3]

You are assuming that they just met that day. The text doesn’t say that.

Ya coulda fooled me.

 

[com7fy8]

John 1:42 describes the very first time Jesus met Simon, who became an apostle (aka Peter). Jesus said to Simon, "You are Simon, the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas (which translates as 'Peter' and means 'rock')".

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!

You don't know? Well, here's a hint: Read Matt 16:18

Well, Jesus said it to Peter while Peter was still on his way to denying Jesus three times. So, I do not trust that Jesus meant He would build us on such an immature person of such character.

So-o-o . . .

 

[Buzzard3]

it is a textual issue, is the rock a pebble or little stone. is the church built on the little stone or built on the rock of Christ.

that is usually how it is explained.

Petros is masculine (as opposed to petra, which is feminine), therefore in Matt 16:18, Peter is petros because Peter is a man.

 

[Buzzard3]

Simply as a means for showing a new purpose for the person.
Blessings

In that case, Jesus would have given all the apostles new names ... but he didn't. Only Peter was given a new name.
Christ is called "rock" in the NT and that is the new name he gave to Simon - funny that

 

[Buzzard3]

This argument tends to ignore the fact that the words are simply cased grammatically, Petros is masculine while petra is feminine.

It also ignores that, in Aramaic, there wouldn't be any difference, both would be kepha.

There are arguments to be made that the Rock upon which the Church is built is Christ Himself or Peter's confession of faith; but this particular argument probably isn't the best.

-CryptoLutheran

The best argument for Jesus changing Simon's name to Cephas ("rock") when they first met (John 1:42) is that Jesus had already chosen Simon to be the "rock" upon which Jesus would build his church ("Mat 16:18).
Ya don't have be Einstein to work that out. I should think it pretty obvious.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

In that case, Jesus would have given all the apostles new names ... but he didn't. Only Peter was given a new name.
Christ is called "rock" in the NT and that is the new name he gave to Simon - funny that

Not necessarily, Andrew and Peter were the first two chosen to follow Jesus Christ of Nazareth however, it was Peter ,among the twelve , that was able to reveal the true identity of the Messiah. He was the first to be labled as the foundation of the Gospel alongside the prophets and of course the Chief Cornerstone, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Blessings

9Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

The problem with that argument is that ALL the apostles helped build the faith, but only Peter was given the name "rock".

Incidentally, Peter, James and John were the principal apostles, but in Acts, Peter's name is mentioned about 60 times, but James and John are each mentioned less than ten times. What does that tell you?

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

If Peter was the first Pope, the Church was not headed by a mere ordinary man - it was headed by a man to whom Jesus gave an awesome supernatural power: The "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:18).

 

[Buzzard3]

Hi in Mathew 16 the rock being referred to as the foundation of the church is not Peter. They were asked who do you say that I am? by Jesus.

Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”


Now this is the foundation of the church the very statement. Peter proves this twice acts 4

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’[fn] 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”


then in 1 Peter 2
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”[fn]
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,[fn]
“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”[fn]
8 and
“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”[fn]

Hey that's interesting - Jesus is referred to a "stone" and this is the same name Jesus gave to Simon in John 1:42.
It is possible Jesus gave Simon that name bcoz Jesus planned to work thru Simon Peter supernaturally after Jesus had left the earth? After all, Jesus did give Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

 

[Buzzard3]

Post deleted

 

[Buzzard3]

*sigh* there are two words used for rock. Peter is the word "Petros" in Greek. The rock Jesus referred to is "Petra". Petros means a pebble or a small stone. "Petra" means bedrock or a large boulder used as a cornerstone. It's a clever play on words. We might call someone Rocky these days. You don't build anything on a pebble.

The Church is built on Christ, the stone that the builders rejected. Peter saw from God that Lord Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is that truth that the church is built on, not Peter. Lord Jesus is head of the Church (Colossians 1:8, Ephesians 5:23, Ephesians 1:22)

There is zero justification for making a man head of the church. Hint. Roman Catholicism builds the papacy on a false interpretation of Matthew 16:18

You've overlooked something. Peter is Petros in Matt 16:18 bcoz petros is masculine and Peter was a man. To use the feminine Petra for Peter would be grammatically incorrect Greek - it would be like calling a man, "Madam".

So the "pebble vs. boulder" argument holds no water and is in fact erroneous.

It's interesting that in a French Bible, exactly the same word is use for "Peter" and "rock" in Matt 16:18.

 

[Buzzard3]

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic.

My understanding is that Matthew was written in Aramaic. In John 1:42 (written in Greek) the name Jesus gives Simon is Aramaic - "kepa (kepha) " - and means "rock" - not a little rock or a big rock; simply "rock".

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

HI the authority the RCC gives to the pope via apostolic succession is the authority that should be governed by the Scriptures. Look at Jewish history and how many times they departed from the scriptures and merged their ideas with the pagan cultures and God held them to the standard in scripture. Now in Rev 2 and 3 we see how the church was doing in that 1st generation and these letters are full of correction and rebukes where 5 out of 7 churches were already corrupted to one degree or another. Now Peter was not even in charge when they held the Jerusalem counsel as it was James who was presiding there. You see that things like celibate priesthood and all are in conflict with the scriptures that teach a bishop is to be the husband of one wife with his children in order. The scriptures people will take many sides on many doctrinal forks in the road but to think that the RCC has been in a line of infallible leaders is blind faith and full of many contradictions with the word.

 

[Buzzard3]

Because Peter was a rock, along with the rest of the Apostles, along with the Prophets, along with every believer, ... along with Jesus, the Cornerstone

But the point is, Jesus gave only Simon the name "rock".

 

[A_Thinker]

But the point is, Jesus gave only Simon the name "rock".

And ... he was ... a rock.

He just wasn't/isn't "The Rock" ...

 

[Buzzard3]

Now Peter was not even in charge when they held the Jerusalem counsel as it was James who was presiding there.
.

Jesus gave the name "rock" to Simon only (John 1:42).

Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter only (Matt 16:19).

Jesus told only Peter to "Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17).

Jesus directly addresses Peter when says the devil wants to "sift" the apostles "like wheat" (Luke 22:31-33).

The principal apostles were Peter, James and John. Yet, in the book of Acts, Peter is mentioned about 60 times, whereas James and John are each mentioned less than ten times.

 

[A_Thinker]

Jesus gave the name "rock" to Simon only (John 1:42).

Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter only (Matt 16:19).

Jesus told only Peter to "Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17).

Jesus directly addresses Peter when says the devil wants to "sift" the apostles "like wheat" (Luke 22:31-33).

The principal apostles were Peter, James and John. Yet, in the book of Acts, Peter is mentioned about 60 times, whereas James and John are each mentioned less than ten times.

It's a better scriptural argument that Peter is the leader of the Apostles, ... but that doesn't extend to the extent of the argument that Peter is the leader of the Church.

That argument is undercut by such scriptural references as these ...

John 21

20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

Galatians 2

11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before certain ones came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they had come, he withdrew and separated himself from them, fearing those who were of the Circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, so much that Barnabas also was carried away by their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, “If thou, being a Jew, lives after the manner of Gentiles and not as do the Jews, why would you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

 

[A_Thinker]

In that case, Jesus would have given all the apostles new names ... but he didn't.

Pure speculation ...

P.S. He did call James and John ... "the sons of thunder" ...