Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[Hammster]

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.”

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..

It can be argued as such because there’s nothing in the text that definitely says otherwise.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

I don't think this is fundamentally any different to a number of Jesus' calling of His apostles. I don't have an issue with the idea that Jesus tells Simon that he will be called Cephas in reference to Matthew 16:18.

What I don't see is how that helps the argument that Matthew 16:18 gets us to the late medieval idea of Petrine primacy which is much of the foundation for the institution of a universal papacy. I really don't see this as much different than the sorts of claims made by certain neo-Protestant groups who claim that their way of doing things is "actually" how it was done in the New Testament.

Because Simon being called Cephas doesn't make St. Peter nor his valid successors universal temporal head of the Church catholic. The bishop of Rome certainly does sit in St. Peter's seat and is very much the valid successor to the Apostle; that gives him valid authority over the historic Diocese in Rome, but not over his brother-bishops. I firmly agree with my Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters that the advent and rise of the papacy in the late middle ages represents a massive divergence from the historic and ancient precedent of the Church.

The Councils, Canons, and Fathers do not permit for a universal pastor. Pope St. Gregory the Great goes so far as to say that anyone who calls themselves a universal patriarch is the predecessor of antichrist. The canons of the ecumenical councils do not grant Rome a status of power above any other patriarchate, but do tell us that the bishop of Rome is afforded a high honor--a position earned by the history of the Roman bishops of being defenders of orthodoxy in moments of intense theological controversy. But because it was an honor earned (not merely an innate honor), it is also an honor that can be--and from those of us outside of communion with Rome--believe has been lost.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aussie Pete]

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".

The argument that Peter was the first of a line of popes and the foundation of the church is absurd. There are two different words. It is known from ancient Greek that the word translated rock (as in upon this rock) was used as a term for bedrock. "Peter" the "rock" is used in the sense of a smaller stone or pebble. The Bible specifically states that Christ is the foundation and head of the Church. Since Rome claims that its own pronouncements have equal authority to the Bible, it make all kinds of claims without Biblical justification.

Grammatically, you may be able to claim that the two words mean the same. When you include all the other references the Christ the Rock, it is obvious that Lord Jesus is the Rock, not a fallible man who happened to be married. So much for celibacy. Lord Jesus did not say, "Peter, you are the rock on which I build my Church". If He said that, you would be justified in claiming Peter as the foundation of the church. That is not what Jesus said.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Pure speculation ...

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

Saul became Paul.

 

[SuperCow]

"Peter/Petra/Cephas" definition arguments aside, I think looking at Matthew in context reveals more than the scripture in John. I've looked at several translations (NIV, KJV, ASV) and they all say it the same way including punctuation, so for the purpose of this post, I'll use the New Catholic Bible (NCB) as it is quoted in www.biblegateway.com.

"13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the Prophets.” 15 “But you,” he said to them, “who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17 Then Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my heavenly Father. 18 And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he gave the disciples strict orders not to tell anyone that he was the Christ."

The key here is that verse 18 "and on this rock" is in the context of the previous four verses in their entirety, not the three words "You are Peter".

Verse 13 "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
Verse 16 "You are Christ, the Son of the living God."
Verse 17 "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my heavenly Father"

and finally

Verse 18 "and on this rock I will build my Church"

And then subsequently in verse 20 "Then he gave the disciples strict orders..." which could be just as much the context of verse 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" as "You are Peter" from verse 18.

It's like looking at the picture that is both a rabbit and a duck. Some see the rabbit and others see the duck. But I think if you read the entire thing naturally, Jesus is teaching his disciples in their entirety, and only singling out Peter because he answered the question correctly as the head of the class at that point.

 

[SuperCow]

In case anyone was wondering about what I meant by the rabbit/duck picture comment.

 

[Buzzard3]

The argument that Peter was the first of a line of popes and the foundation of the church is absurd. There are two different words. It is known from ancient Greek that the word translated rock (as in upon this rock) was used as a term for bedrock. "Peter" the "rock" is used in the sense of a smaller stone or pebble. The Bible specifically states that Christ is the foundation and head of the Church. Since Rome claims that its own pronouncements have equal authority to the Bible, it make all kinds of claims without Biblical justification ...
When you include all the other references the Christ the Rock, it is obvious that Lord Jesus is the Rock

"absurd"? On the contrary, if Jesus choose Peter to be the earthly leader of his Church (as the Catholic Church claims), I should think it makes perfect sense for Jesus - the"rock/cornerstone" - to give his earthly representative (Simon Peter) a similar name ... which is precisely what happened in John 1:42 - Jesus gave Simon the name "rock" (btw, it was the very first time they met).

not a fallible man

Jesus knew full well that Peter was a fallible man, and that's why Jesus gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19) - a supernatural power that not only made Peter the supreme leader of the Church, but guaranteed he would teach infallible truth (dogma and doctrine).

God did the same thing with the OT prophets and the various writers of the Scriptures ... fallible men were guided by the Holy Spirit to utter and/or write the infallibe words of God.

 

[prodromos]

Jesus knew full well that Peter was a fallible man, and that's why Jesus gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19) - a supernatural power that not only made Peter the supreme leader of the Church, but guaranteed he would teach infallible truth (dogma and doctrine).

The Scripture you have quoted suggests no such thing. You won't find a single Church Father who gives such an interpretation.

 

[Aussie Pete]

"absurd"? On the contrary, if Jesus choose Peter to be the earthly leader of his Church (as the Catholic Church claims), I should think it makes perfect sense for Jesus - the"rock/cornerstone" - to give his earthly representative (Simon Peter) a similar name ... which is precisely what happened in John 1:42 - Jesus gave Simon the name "rock" (btw, it was the very first time they met).

Jesus knew full well that Peter was a fallible man, and that's why Jesus gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19) - a supernatural power that not only made Peter the supreme leader of the Church, but guaranteed he would teach infallible truth (dogma and doctrine).

God did the same thing with the OT prophets and the various writers of the Scriptures ... fallible men were guided by the Holy Spirit to utter and/or write the infallibe words of God.

Every Christian is Christ's earthly representative. Every Christian is called to preach the gospel of the Kingdom. Peter was one of the 12 founding apostles. That's it. When the pronouncements of a particular person contradict God's word, then that pronouncement is false.

Peter was never the supreme leader of the church. Read the Book again. Lord Jesus is Head of His church. It is His body. There is no one man band. Ephesians 1:22 & 23 make that clear, along with many other statements in God's word.

 

[Buzzard3]

Well, Jesus said it to Peter while Peter was still on his way to denying Jesus three times.

So-o-o . . .

Jesus gave Simon the name "rock" the very first moment they met? Why?

So, I do not trust that Jesus meant He would build us on such an immature person of such character.

Yet Jesus gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19). What do the "keys" mean?

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

So it's just a coincidence that Jesus and Peter are both called "rock"? Do you think it possible that Jesus (the spiritual head and cornerstone of the Church) chose Simon to be the first earthly head and cornerstone of the Church (after Jesus ascended to heaven) and that's why Jesus changed Simon's name to "rock"? After all, Jesus gave the supernatural power of the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter only (Matt 16:19), did he not?

 

[prodromos]

Yet Jesus gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19). What do the "keys" mean?

The authority to bind and loose.

 

[Buzzard3]

The authority to bind and loose.

All the apostles were given the power to bind and loose (Matt 18), but only Peter received the "keys of the kingdom of heaven". So obviously there's something special and unique about the position and power that Jesus bestowed on Peter.

Surely only God has the keys to the kingdom of heaven, so Peter was given some kind of awesome God-like power ... which is one reason both Jesus and Peter are called "rock". Jesus the "rock" installed Peter the "rock" to be his earthly representative and head of Christ's Church, who would infallibly (a God-like power) decide dogmas and doctrines, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Buzzard3]

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

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

So it's just a coincidence that Jesus and Peter are both called "rock"?
Could it be that Jesus - the "Rock" and "cornerstone" of the Church - gave Simon the name "rock" because Jesus chose Simon to be his earthly representative and head of the Church after the Ascension? Could this be why Jesus gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" only to Peter (Matt 16:18)?

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

The apostles were the leaders of the Church, so if Peter was the leader of the apostles, he was also 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?”

How does that passage undercut my argument?

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?

Peter was not practising what he preached - a personal failing - and that is why Paul rebuked him. That doesn't prove Peter was not the leader of the Church. If the President of the United States makes a mistake and is corrected by one of his advisors, does that mean he is not the President?

Earlier in Galatians we read how the HS sent Paul to Peter and other elders of the Church in order that they approve what Paul was preaching. That demonstrates that Paul was subject to Peter's leadership.

 

[Buzzard3]

Pure speculation ...

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

As far as we know, the only apostle given a new name by Jesus was Simon.

 

[SuperCow]

All the apostles were given the power to bind and loose (Matt 18), but only Peter received the "keys of the kingdom of heaven". So obviously there's something special and unique about the position and power that Jesus bestowed on Peter.

Matthew 16 must be taken in context, the full discussion being summarized in verse 13-20, not just verse 18. In context, all the apostles were given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, because Jesus was talking to all of them.

Surely only God has the keys to the kingdom of heaven, so Peter was given some kind of awesome God-like power ... which is one reason both Jesus and Peter are called "rock". Jesus the "rock" installed Peter the "rock" to be his earthly representative and head of Christ's Church, who would infallibly (a God-like power) decide dogmas and doctrines, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.

All the apostles, and those that were converted were given the power of the holy spirit. If you want to call that some kind of awesome God-like power than so be it, but Peter was not given more power because of this.

Ephesians 5:23-25 says the head of the church is Jesus, not Peter (or any other earthly representative.) Colossians 1:18 also confirms this.

In Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas were appointing elders in churches they went to, and they weren't even apostles. But in 15:2 they deferred to the apostle(s) when they had a dispute, not to Peter. No doubt Peter was part of this, and part of appointing elders, but there's no indication that he held any supreme position over the other apostles, nor is there any reference to any powers over what the other early Christians had.

Jesus no doubt had a special place for Peter emotionally due to the sincerity of his faith, but I see nothing to suggest anything beyond that.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

So it's just a coincidence that Jesus and Peter are both called "rock"? Do you think it possible that Jesus (the spiritual head and cornerstone of the Church) chose Simon to be the first earthly head and cornerstone of the Church (after Jesus ascended to heaven) and that's why Jesus changed Simon's name to "rock"? After all, Jesus gave the supernatural power of the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter only (Matt 16:19), did he not?

The Kingdom of God is now and forever. Peter is not the Chief Cornerstone he is part of the foundation made of the Prophets and Apostles. Peter's power, through the Holy Spirit, was not only given to him, it was also given to the other Apostles. They were equals and Christ made sure they understood Him even warning them that none shall lead over another. As a unit they built upon their foundation known as the the Church. The Chief among all of us is of course, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Messiah. There is really no way of getting around this fact. Be blessed.

 

[Buzzard3]

I don't have an issue with the idea that Jesus tells Simon that he will be called Cephas in reference to Matthew 16:18.

What I don't see is how that helps the argument that Matthew 16:18 gets us to the late medieval idea of Petrine primacy which is much of the foundation for the institution of a universal papacy.

Jesus is referred to as "rock ... stone ... cornerstone" in Scripture, and Jesus gives Simon a new name, "rock". Coincidence?
This happened the very first time they met ... in fact the very first thing Jesus ever said to Simon Peter was, "You are Simon, son of Jonah. You will be called Cephas ('rock')" - John 1:42. Please explain.

Later, Jesus gives Peter (only) the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19). Why to Peter only?

All these things make perfect sense if Jesus had chosen Simon Peter to be his earthly representative after the Ascension ... which is why Jesus said Peter will be the "rock" on which he will build his Church (Matt 16:18).

 

[Buzzard3]

Saul became Paul.

Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, but Jesus did not change Saul's name to Paul ... in fact, in Scripture, Jesus only referred to him as "Saul".

"Saul" is a Jewish name and "Paul" is its Roman translation. When Saul went to preach in the Roman world, he became Paul.