Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[Buzzard3]

This is rather facile.

Call it what you like ... my point nullifies your argument. Peter was a different man after the Holy Spirit descended on the Church at Pentecost.

Peter is who he is when Jesus renames him ... a quite fallible disciple ...

In John 1:42, Jesus tells Simon his name "will" be Kephas ... not now, but at some point in the future (ie, Pentecost).

In Matt 16:18, Jesus says he "will" build his Church on Peter ... not now, but at some point in the future (ie, Pentecost).

In Matt 16:19, Jesus says he "will" give Peter the keys of heaven ... not now, but at some point in the future (ie, Pentecost).

Peter is who he is when Jesus renames him ... a quite fallible disciple ...

All the Prophets and all the writers of the books of the Bible were "quite fallible" men, yet the power of the Holy Spirit enabled them to INFALLIBLY speak and write God's word.

 

[A_Thinker]

... but Jesus formally gave the name "rock" to ONLY Peter (John 1:42).

That conveys the meaning that Peter was/is a rock in the church, which he was ... as affirmed by Paul ...

The Apostles (Peter included) and the Prophets are foundations stones ... with Christ Himself being the chief Cornerstone ...

 

[A_Thinker]

Call it what you like ... my point nullifies your argument. Peter was a different man after the Holy Spirit descended on the Church at Pentecost.

Not really, ... because your point is that, despite Christ naming Peter a rock, ... he was not really a rock ... yet.

Everyone in the upper room was a different person ... after the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Despite this, Paul had to ultimately publicly correct Peter to his face ... because of his hypocrisy ...

 

[Buzzard3]

Matthew 20

25 But Jesus called them unto Him and said, “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

26 But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

27 and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant,

Firstly, in that passage, Jesus doesn't say or imply there will be no leaders among the apostles; he merely says there is to be no leaership like the Gentiles practise - ie, tryannical and self-serving.

Secondly, Jesus gave the "keys" to only Peter (Matt 6:19), thereby appointing Peter as the overall leader of the apostles and the Church.

Thirdly, Jesus gave only Simon the name "rock", bcoz Peter was the "rock" on which Jesus would build his Church (Matt 16:18) ... thereby making Peter the leader of the apostles and the Church.

Fourthly, almost every time the apostles are together, it is Peter who speaks for them ... strongly suggesting that Peter is their leader.

 

[A_Thinker]

Firstly, in that passage, Jesus doesn't say or imply there will be no leaders among the apostles; he merely says there is to be no leaership like the Gentiles practise - ie, tryannical and self-serving.

Jesus' statement says nothing about tyranny ... only dominion and authority. Where are you getting tyranny/self-service ?

Secondly, Jesus gave the "keys" to only Peter (Matt 6:19), thereby appointing Peter as the overall leader of the apostles and the Church.

Jesus also told Peter that John's calling ... was none of his business ...
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.”

Thirdly, Jesus gave only Simon the name "rock", bcoz Peter was the "rock" on which Jesus would build his Church (Matt 16:18) ... thereby making Peter the leader of the apostles and the Church.

That's a pretty big leap ...

Fourthly, almost every time the apostles are together, it is Peter who speaks for them ... strongly suggesting that Peter is their leader.

Peter was somewhat brash ... and had a big mouth. It got him in hot water periodically ...

* When he opposed Jesus' prophecy of crucifixion
* When he suggested building booths for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah at the Transfiguration
* When he cut off the priest's servant's ear
* When he said that he was willing to die for Christ
* When he inquired as to John's calling

 

[klutedavid]

You've got your wires crossed. Firstly, It was not sinful for any Christian (Jew or Gentile) to practise Jewish ritual customs ... provided it was understood that such customs are not required for salvation and are simply cultural artifacts.
And secondly, nowhere in Scripture does it say Peter (or any apostle) taught that following the law of Moses is necessary for salvation.

Can we practice the ritual of circumcision?

Can we refuse fellowship with the Jews?

Can we refuse fellowship with the seven nations that surround Israel?

What Paul is accusing Peter of is being two-faced: Peter compelled the Gentiles to live like Jews only when the Jewish "circumcision party" was in town, but when they're weren't in town, Peter not only didn't compel Gentiles to live like Jews, he himself lived like the Gentiles. Peter's hypocrisy was a relatively minor offence, really.

Peter was not two faced, Peter was condemned!

The text doesn't say that Peter only forced the Gentiles under the law. When the circumcision group arrived. That's not what it says.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes Sir, the rock had backslidden into the law. The rock was condemned.

More importantly, Paul was the apostle to the Gentile churches, Paul was the father of all the Gentile churches. Paul was the true pope.

That what the letter to the Galatians proclaims.

Verrily squirrelly he even wrote the epistle to the Romans.

 

[Buzzard3]

seem to be missing the elephant in the room

Ya got that right ... the "elephant in the room" is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Buzzard3]

That conveys the meaning that Peter was/is a rock in the church, which he was ... as affirmed by Paul ...

The Apostles (Peter included) and the Prophets are foundations stones ... with Christ Himself being the chief Cornerstone ...

You are determined to ignore the fact that Jesus formally gave the name "rock" to Peter only. Lots of Protestants feel compelled to do that, I've noticed.

 

[klutedavid]

Not really, ... because your point is that, despite Christ naming Peter a rock, ... he was not really a rock ... yet.

Everyone in the upper room was a different person ... after the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Despite this, Paul had to ultimately publicly correct Peter to his face ... because of his hypocrisy ...

Peter was being a hypocrite but that was not the real crime that Peter was committing.

Peter was supporting legalism, the arch enemy of grace.

Legalism was the greatest enemy to Christianity, from the first century to the present day.

The legalists put Jesus on trial.

The legalists pursued Paul all over the world.

The legalists have generated conflict throughout the history of Christianity.

Legalism fueled the inquisitions.

Galatians 2:21
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.

Galatians 3:10
For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse.

It is either grace or law, the choice is yours and your destiny hinges on that choice.

 

[klutedavid]

Are you saying Peter was teaching the Gentiles that following the law of Moses was necessary for salvation?
And James was teaching the same thing too?

Of course, Peter was siding with legalism.

 

[klutedavid]

Are we to believe that your hopelessly flawed ideas are the result of the Holy Spirit guiding you to an infallible interpretation of Scripture?

Let me ask you a simple question.

Are you under the law?

 

[Buzzard3]

Can we practice the ritual of circumcision?

Yes ... but only if it is understood as a custom that is irrelevant to salvation.

You can not eat pork if you want ... and follow all the other Jewish dietary customs as well ... as long as they are not kept as "laws" unto salvation.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes ... but only if it is understood as a custom that is irrelevant to salvation.

You can not eat pork if you want ... and follow all the other Jewish dietary customs as well ... as long as they are not kept as "laws" unto salvation.

Interesting reply.

How about we dial up the difficulty level.

Are you under the law, i.e., the ten commandments?

 

[Buzzard3]

Not really, ... because your point is that, despite Christ naming Peter a rock, ... he was not really a rock ... yet.

Yes, that's what Jesus implied when he gave Simon that name ... as I explained to you in the previous post:
"In John 1:42, Jesus tells Simon his name "WILL" be Kephas ... not now, but at some point in the FUTURE (ie, Pentecost)."
The Church and Peter's role as the "rock" of the Church didn't begin until the Holy Spirit descended on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

Everyone in the upper room was a different person ... after the coming of the Holy Spirit.

True, but the Holy Spirit acted on Peter the "rock" is a unique way, bcoz it was to Peter and Peter alone whom Jesus gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

Despite this, Paul had to ultimately publicly correct Peter to his face ... because of his hypocrisy

Yes, but so what? Did you expect the Holy Spirit to turn Peter into a robot that performs faultessly? He still retained his flawed human nature. Peter's mistake and Paul's subsequent correction doesn't prove that Peter was not the "rock" and the leader of the Church.

 

[Buzzard3]

Can we refuse fellowship with the Jews?

Can we refuse fellowship with the seven nations that surround Israel?

I think you're getting a bit side-tracked ... we're talking about whether or not Christians can practise what were Jewish laws ...
I'm not aware of any Jewish law that said Gentiles can't fellowship with Jews. Gentiles weren't under Jewish law ... that's why they're called Gentiles.

Btw, it's my understanding that the Jewish "law" to not socialize with Gentiles is not part of law of Moses. It was a man-made custom, designed to keep Jews getting involved in pagan practices, like consuming non-kosha food. No need for Christians to follow man-made laws.

Peter was not two faced, Peter was condemned!

The text doesn't say that Peter only forced the Gentiles under the law. When the circumcision group arrived. That's not what it says.

It's implied in the text, if you read it carefully.

In Gal 2:14, this is what Paul said to Peter:
“If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

That verse says Peter lived "like a Gentile", implying that while he was with the Gentiles he didn't follow Jewish customs ... which of course implies that he didn't make his Gentile brethren follow Jewish customs either.
Then Paul says Peter compelled "the Gentiles to live like Jews". So now Peter is doing the opposite thing with the Gentiles - he IS making them follow Jewish customs.
So Paul is describing Peter doing two different things -
1. Peter DOES NOT compel Gentiles to follow Jewish customs, then
2. Peter DOES compel Gentiles to follow Jewish customs.

Peter's inconsistent behaviour towards the Gentiles is explained by v.12:
""For BEFORE certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; BUT WHEN THEY CAME he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party."

Peter feared "the circumcision party" - Jewish converts who believed Gentile converts must follow Jewish laws. So when these Judaizers arrived in Antioch, Peter appeased them by not only separating himself from the Gentile brethren, but by also making the Gentiles followJewish customs.

Peter's two-faced behavior is what Paul got so upset about. Obviously, Paul didn't fear the "circumcision party" like Peter did.

 

[prodromos]

Peter feared "the circumcision party" - Jewish converts who believed Gentile converts must follow Jewish laws. So when these Judaizers arrived in Antioch, Peter appeased them by not only separating himself from the Gentile brethren, but by also making the Gentiles followJewish customs

I recommend you also read St John Chrysostom's commentary on this Scripture. It's amazing how willing people are to throw Peter under the bus when in fact he and Paul were working together to bring the judaizers around.

You also keep claiming the keys were given to Peter alone which is not the consensus of the Church.

 

[Buzzard3]

Jesus' statement says nothing about tyranny ... only dominion and authority. Where are you getting tyranny/self-service ?

That's what the text implies ... and there are plenty of Bible commentaries that agree with me.

Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles LORD IT OVER THEM, and their great men EXERCISE AUTHORITY OVER THEM."
(Matt 20:25)

Below are a few Bible commentaries on what Jesus meant by "lord it over them" and "exercise authority over them" ...

BibleRef.com:
" Jesus pointed to those Gentile rulers (eg, Roman) as a negative example of how to lead. He was not rejecting the idea of someone being in charge. Yet He was calling out the Roman tendency to be authoritarian in demanding to be served and obeyed. In part, He is showing conflict among the disciples about who would hold the highest position and the most power was a worldly and unspiritual ambition.

Clarke Commentary:
"Exercise dominion - and - exercise authority upon them. — They tyrannized and exercised arbitrary power over the people. This was certainly true of the governments in our Lord's time, both in the east and in the west."

Biblehub.com ...
Ellicott's Bible commentary:
" Exercise dominion over them.—Better, as in 1Peter 5:3, lord it over them. It is not easy to find a like forcible rendering for the other word, but we must remember that it, too, implies a wrong exercise of authority, in the interest, not of the subjects, but of the rulers."

Pulpit commentary:
"Exercise dominion over them ... lord it over - significant of an absolute and oppressive domination. Exercise authority upon them; i.e. over the Gentiles ... use authority harshly and severely. The heathen, when they are raised to pre-eminence, employ their power cruelly and in order to gain their own ends and purposes, and aspire to superiority only with such objects in view. Such ambition is essentially a heathen passion, and wholly alien from the spirit of Christ. Matthew 20:25

 

[Buzzard3]

Jesus also told Peter that John's calling ... was none of his business ...
John 21

That doesn't alter the fact that Jesus gave Peter (only) a divine power - "the keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19) - which implies Jesus chose Peter to be the leader of the Church.

That's a pretty big leap ...

Not at all ... that Peter is the "rock" in Matt 16:18 is the only sensible explanation for Jesus giving Simon the name "rock" the very first time they met.
Jesus had chosen Simon to the "rock" in Matt 16:18 before they'd even met.

That seems like a "pretty big leap" to you because doing so means accepting the Catholic interpretation.

 

[A_Thinker]

That doesn't alter the fact that Jesus gave Peter (only) a divine power - "the keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19) - which implies Jesus chose Peter to be the leader of the Church.

Not at all ... that Peter is the "rock" in Matt 16:18 is the only sensible explanation for Jesus giving Simon the name "rock" the very first time they met.
Jesus had chosen Simon to the "rock" in Matt 16:18 before they'd even met.

That seems like a "pretty big leap" to you because doing so means accepting the Catholic interpretation.

There's much more conclusive evidence for CHRIST being the ROCK upon which the Church is built ... both from the Old and New Testaments.

Both Peter and Paul testify to CHRIST being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE ...