Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas/Peter...

kelly1 · 18-02-2009 6:57pm #1

Hello all, it would be great to hear some views on the significance of the following verse from John 1:

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas? Surely He had a good reason for doing so? Could it possibly have something to do with Matthew 16:18?

Mt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church

Do people agree that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic in His day and would have used the the word Cephas instead of Petra/Petros?

God bless,
Noel.

hivizman · 19-02-2009 12:26am

The name "Cephas" is derived from the Aramaic word kepha for "rock". The name "Peter" is derived from the Greek word petra, which also means "rock". You could say that Jesus was giving Simon the nickname "the Rock" (that's what Tom Wright does in his translation in John for Everyone), or my own preference: "Rocky".

There's an interesting variation in the narrative between Matthew and John here. In John's Gospel, the naming of Simon as Cephas/Peter occurs when he first meets Jesus, whereas in Matthew's Gospel, this happens rather later, when Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah. The first mention of Peter occurs in Matthew 4:18: "As [Jesus] walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the lake - for they were fishermen." Note "who is", not "who was" - I interpret this as implying that the author of Matthew's Gospel was writing for a readership who knew the disciple primarily by the name Peter.

The passage from John's Gospel is also interesting in that John gives two other words in Hebrew or Aramaic (Rabbi in John 1:38 and Messiah in John 1:41) and immediately gives the Greek translation. I interpret this as the author of John's Gospel implying to readers: "I'm writing this in Greek, and I appreciate that most people reading this will be Greek speakers, but I'm also aware that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so I'm using some of his actual words."

A final curious point: in John 21:15, when the resurrected Christ encounters Simon Peter on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, he doesn't address him as "Peter", but rather as "Simon son of John".

robindch · 19-02-2009 2:33am

kelly1 wrote: »

Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas?

Can't see any reason more compelling than the author's need to make a really bad pun that really only works in French, rather than the language it was written or spoken in -- now that's foresight.

kelly1 · 19-02-2009 11:17am

hivizman wrote: »

The name "Cephas" is derived from the Aramaic word kepha for "rock". The name "Peter" is derived from the Greek word petra, which also means "rock". You could say that Jesus was giving Simon the nickname "the Rock" (that's what Tom Wright does in his translation in John for Everyone), or my own preference: "Rocky".

I'm OK with that.

hivizman wrote: »

There's an interesting variation in the narrative between Matthew and John here. In John's Gospel, the naming of Simon as Cephas/Peter occurs when he first meets Jesus, whereas in Matthew's Gospel, this happens rather later, when Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah. The first mention of Peter occurs in Matthew 4:18: "As [Jesus] walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the lake - for they were fishermen." Note "who is", not "who was" - I interpret this as implying that the author of Matthew's Gospel was writing for a readership who knew the disciple primarily by the name Peter.

Yes, it is interesting. I think this could be explained if Jesus told Simon about his new name when He first met Peter and again later when He asked the apostles who they believed Him to be.

hivizman wrote: »

The passage from John's Gospel is also interesting in that John gives two other words in Hebrew or Aramaic (Rabbi in John 1:38 and Messiah in John 1:41) and immediately gives the Greek translation. I interpret this as the author of John's Gospel implying to readers: "I'm writing this in Greek, and I appreciate that most people reading this will be Greek speakers, but I'm also aware that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so I'm using some of his actual words."

OK

hivizman wrote: »

A final curious point: in John 21:15, when the resurrected Christ encounters Simon Peter on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, he doesn't address him as "Peter", but rather as "Simon son of John".

Yes interesting too. However in the same passage Jesus charges Peter 3 times with care of His flock/sheep, which I understand to mean the entire Church. Clearly Jesus singled out Peter for this task because He said "do you love me more than these?" and spoke to him alone when he said feed My sheep/lambs.

hivizman · 19-02-2009 12:54pm

kelly1 wrote: »

In the same passage Jesus charges Peter 3 times with care of His flock/sheep, which I understand to mean the entire Church. Clearly Jesus singled out Peter for this task because He said "do you love me more than these?" and spoke to him alone when he said feed My sheep/lambs.

Absolutely right, and that's the important message of this passage, not minor details such as what name the resurrected Jesus used to address Simon Peter.

Soul Winner · 19-02-2009 6:17pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes interesting too. However in the same passage Jesus charges Peter 3 times with care of His flock/sheep, which I understand to mean the entire Church. Clearly Jesus singled out Peter for this task because He said "do you love me more than these?" and spoke to him alone when he said feed My sheep/lambs.

It sounds like you are trying to squeeze into this commission given to Peter (Simon) a task that Peter never really fulfilled. Rather it was fulfilled by the apostle Paul.

My understanding of Jesus’ designation as 'Rock' upon which He was going to build His church, to refer to Peter's statement which the spirit of the Father had revealed to him and not to Peter himself. "Thou art Peter and upon ‘this rock’ I shall build my church..." What rock? Peter? Peter wasn't a rock. He was probably the most unstable of all the disciples before the resurrection. For instance in John 13 when Jesus wanted to wash his feet, Peter wouldn’t hear of it, but when Jesus said that unless Jesus wash Peter's feet he will have no part with Him, then Peter asked to be washed all over.

In Matthew 4 when Jesus spoke of the cross Peter sternly rebuked his Master saying: "far be it from you", then Jesus called him Satan, that he savors not the things of God but those that be of man.

Then in Luke 22 Jesus tells Peter that Satan asked to sift him as wheat, but that He (Jesus) would pray that his faith fail not. But Peter said that he would not only go to prison with Him but would also die with Him, and then later that night Peter denies his Lord three times then runs off weeping bitterly.

Then in John 21, after the resurrection, Peter decides to go fishing because Jesus was late. Then after not catching any fish at all in the boat a strange man tells them how to do it better from the shore. After recognising that it was Jesus Peter jumps out of the boat naked and goes to Jesus. Jesus catches more fish from the shore than Peter could in the boat and then Jesus asks him whether Peter loved Him more than these, referring to the fish that Peter had caught. Jesus had to ask him three times whether he loved Jesus more than these before the penny finally dropped with Peter.

Then after that Jesus tells him how is life is going to turn out and Peter not liking it very much, looked at John and asks Jesus: "But what about him?" to which Jesus replied; "If he lives till I come again what concern is that to thee?" Then in the book of acts Peter had to be shown a vision and told in the vision not to call unclean what God had cleansed, which prepared him to preach the Gospel to a gentile (non Jew) Centurion called Cornelius.

Peter was not the rock that Jesus was referring to, it was rather Peter’s statement: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” that was the rock upon which He would build His Church. You must remember that Jesus also said in John 10 that: “Other sheep have I, which are not of this fold…” to these was sent Christ’s primary apostle. Paul. Without Paul Christianity would have become a splinter off shoot from Judaism located in Jerusalem, who would accept Christ as Messiah but also keep the law of Moses. That was not what God intended when He sent His only begotten Son into the world to free us from that yoke of bondage, never to be entangled in it again.

The great thing about Peter is that God let him preach the first message of the Church. The one who failed Him the most was the one whose message birthed the church. The next time you fail miserably in your faith walk, remember how much Peter failed and yet it was Peter whose name was specifically given when the message came to the disciples after the resurrection. “But go tell His disciples, and Peter” Mark 16:7 make sure Peter gets the message. That is amazing grace.

kelly1 · 19-02-2009 6:35pm

Soul Winner, it was throught this grace that Peter became the Rock. I'm not diminishing the importance of Jesus whom I acknowledge as the Head of the Church.

Why, in your opinion, did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas (rock)?

Soul Winner · 19-02-2009 8:11pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Soul Winner, it was throught this grace that Peter became the Rock. I'm not diminishing the importance of Jesus whom I acknowledge as the Head of the Church.

Why, in your opinion, did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas (rock)?

Because that's what Jesus wanted him to become not because Jesus actually thought he was a rock. I think that Peter did become a rock eventually but not until after the resurrection and even then he still showed signs of unstableness as is shown in the verses below:

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." Galatians 2:11-16

No wonder Jesus had to go outside of the original band of disciples and pick Paul in order to save His Gospel. If He had left it unchecked with the others then Christianity would have never survived and we would never have heard of Jesus.

kelly1 · 19-02-2009 8:47pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Because that's what Jesus wanted him to become not because Jesus actually thought he was a rock.

I think that Peter did become a rock eventually but not until after the resurrection and even then he still showed signs of unstableness as is shown in the verses below:

1 crack doesn't necessarily make the whole rock crumble especially when you have Jesus as a Healer.

Soul Winner wrote: »

No wonder Jesus had to go outside of the original band of disciples and pick Paul in order to save His Gospel. If He had left it unchecked with the others then Christianity would have never survived and we would never have heard of Jesus.

I think that's unfair to Peter and the other apostles. Paul had a special gift indeed but he was still only a man. It's the Holy Spirit which protects the Church from teaching error. Remember also that it was Peter who correctly identified Jesus as the Messiah. You will also see lots of other cases where Peter shows authority e.g. the first half of Acts. Jesus also gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter alone.

See http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html for more examples.

Soul Winner · 20-02-2009 2:55am

kelly1 wrote: »

1 crack doesn't necessarily make the whole rock crumble especially when you have Jesus as a Healer.

I think that's unfair to Peter and the other apostles. Paul had a special gift indeed but he was still only a man. It's the Holy Spirit which protects the Church from teaching error. Remember also that it was Peter who correctly identified Jesus as the Messiah. You will also see lots of other cases where Peter shows authority e.g. the first half of Acts. Jesus also gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter alone.

See http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html for more examples.

Paul wrote two thirds of the New Testament, what does that tell you?

"...I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles." II Cor 11:5

"I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then receive me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that! What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn? If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands." II Cor 11:16-33

Now what did Peter do and say?

Oh yeah:

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother 'Paul' also wrote you with the wisdom that "God" gave him." 2 Peter 3:15

kelly1 · 20-02-2009 11:53am

Soul Winner wrote: »

Paul wrote two thirds of the New Testament, what does that tell you?

It tells me that Paul was the better writer and better educated.

Did you read http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html ?

Soul Winner · 20-02-2009 2:52pm

kelly1 wrote: »

It tells me that Paul was the better writer and better educated.

Did you read http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html ?

Yes I did read it but what do expect me to glean from it? That Peter had a senior position in the church? Of that I am in no doubt whatsoever. But Peter did not fulfill the commission given to him directly from Jesus.

"As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message." Galatians 2:6

These men included James (the brother of Jesus), John and Peter. What does that tell you about them? They that were of reputation added nothing to Paul. What is borne out throughout the history of the Church though is that it was Paul who rescued the Church from the slide that the other apostles were on with regards to the keeping of the Mosaic Law as well as accepting Christ as Messiah.

The two doctrines are diametrically apposed to each other. Christ came to deliver mankind from the bondage to that yoke, not to be entangled again in it. So the preaching of that yoke along with the preaching that Christ delivered you from that yoke is a death sentence for the then new way that Christ died in order to bring in. Jesus had to go outside those other apostles and raise up Paul, a more learned man in the way of the Law than all of them put together.

"If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless." Philippians 3:4-6

"But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men." Acts 5:34-35

"Then Paul said: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today." Acts 22:3

Why did Jesus choose Paul all those years after the Church was born? If Peter James and John were doing what they were supposed to be doing then He wouldn't have needed Paul.

"Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?', 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'" Acts: 26:15-18

The resurrected Son of God in power directly carved Paul out for this great commission. Now which one of your citations for Peter comes in anyway close to topping that?

JimiTime · 20-02-2009 7:25pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes I did read it but what do expect me to glean from it? That Peter had a senior position in the church? Of that I am in no doubt whatsoever. But Peter did not fulfill the commission given to him directly from Jesus.

"As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message." Galatians 2:6

These men included James (the brother of Jesus), John and Peter. What does that tell you about them? They that were of reputation added nothing to Paul. What is borne out throughout the history of the Church though is that it was Paul who rescued the Church from the slide that the other apostles were on with regards to the keeping of the Mosaic Law as well as accepting Christ as Messiah.

The two doctrines are diametrically apposed to each other. Christ came to deliver mankind from the bondage to that yoke, not to be entangled again in it. So the preaching of that yoke along with the preaching that Christ delivered you from that yoke is a death sentence for the then new way that Christ died in order to bring in. Jesus had to go outside those other apostles and raise up Paul, a more learned man in the way of the Law than all of them put together.

"If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless." Philippians 3:4-6

"But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men." Acts 5:34-35

"Then Paul said: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today." Acts 22:3

Why did Jesus choose Paul all those years after the Church was born? If Peter James and John were doing what they were supposed to be doing then He wouldn't have needed Paul.

"Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?', 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'" Acts: 26:15-18

The resurrected Son of God in power directly carved Paul out for this great commission. Now which one of your citations for Peter comes in anyway close to topping that?

SW, Paul does not have to be raised up at the expense of the reputations of other apostles. Politely I say, all were apostles, all were chosen, and all were mortal men. All were faithful, and all had different personalities, but were one in spirit. The holy spirit of God. I don't know if its your intention, but how you are putting things, seems very disrespectful to Peter, James and John. Pauls ministry is indeed great, but lets not start exhalting him. If its just your intention to show how Peter was less rock-like than Paul, then fair enough. However, your language seems to put the other apostles down somewhat. All said in the politest way SW:)

wolfsbane · 20-02-2009 8:45pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Soul Winner, it was throught this grace that Peter became the Rock. I'm not diminishing the importance of Jesus whom I acknowledge as the Head of the Church.

Why, in your opinion, did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas (rock)?

Noel, I am not bothered why Jesus said this to Peter. Whether it was Peter the individual or Peter's messianic declaration makes little difference. The promised outcome was the same - the Church was built on such a foundation. Peter was the pre-eminent leader of the Church when it was first formed at Pentecost.

What Roman Catholicism later claimed for him, that was not included in the Lord's remarks. Peter never became the sole possessor of the keys. All the apostles shared that authority. What was said to Peter in Matthew 16 was said to them all in Matthew 18:18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

And that authority continues with THEM - not with the elders they appointed to rule the Church when they had died out. Apostolic authority continues in the word of God, the Bible.

Elders/pastors labour to preach and teach that word and to govern the churches by it. They have no authority in themselves to infallibly speak, whereas the apostles did.

Soul Winner · 20-02-2009 8:46pm

JimiTime wrote: »

SW, Paul does not have to be raised up at the expense of the reputations of other apostles. Politely I say, all were apostles, all were chosen, and all were mortal men. All were faithful, and all had different personalities, but were one in spirit. The holy spirit of God. I don't know if its your intention, but how you are putting things, seems very disrespectful to Peter, James and John. Pauls ministry is indeed great, but lets not start exhalting him. If its just your intention to show how Peter was less rock-like than Paul, then fair enough. However, your language seems to put the other apostles down somewhat. All said in the politest way SW:)

I appreciate your politeness Jimmy but when one is being asked to accept that Peter should get primacy when it comes to the standing of the apostles then one is obliged to react in whatever way one feels merits the situation and defend Paul, that's the least I can do.

I have no gripe with Peter or the other apostles per sé but don't tell me that they were more important than Paul, they weren't. Paul did more to nurture and protect the Gospel than all the others did. It is his letters more than any others which frame the basis of Christian philosophic thought. It is when one returns to his epistles one produces a reformation.

I use strongish tones in this regard to make those who don't realize that there were any conflicts in the New Testament church, see what Paul had to contend with in his ministry, especially in Jerusalem where the so called 'Pillars' of the church resided.

James pastored the Church in Jerusalem for 19 years before the high priests had him stoned for holding the view that Christ was the messiah. 19 years??? Paul came to the same city and in 3 days caused a riot. What does that tell you about James in Jerusalem? It tells me that he didn't like rattling the theological cages of the Jewish Leaders very much, a job Jesus Himself did pretty well in His earthly ministry, for which He was eventually crucified.

Everywhere Paul went he caused a stir. He was a fire for the cause of the gospel of Christ. For someone to try and tell me that Peter, James or John (as great as they might have been in their own right) should get primacy over Paul just insults me. That's why I put them in their place, and if that sounds offensive to some then maybe their primacy doctrine for Peter needs reviewing and a new study of the life of the apostle Paul might clear a few things up and one might then be able to make an informed decision regarding the who's who between Peter and Paul.

Splendour · 22-02-2009 7:30pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

No wonder Jesus had to go outside of the original band of disciples and pick Paul in order to save His Gospel. If He had left it unchecked with the others then Christianity would have never survived and we would never have heard of Jesus.

Hi Soul Winner, by making this statement it seems you are saying Jesus made a mistake when he chose Peter as a disciple? God does not make mistakes! I think Peter is great because of his 'humaness' and if we are all perfectly honest with ourselves, there's more of impetuous Peter in us than there is Paul

Splendour · 22-02-2009 7:34pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas? Surely He had a good reason for doing so? Could it possibly have something to do with Matthew 16:18?

Hi Noel,

Apparantly the origins of the name Simon derive fron the word reed. A reed as we know is flimsy and prone to blowing about in the wind wheras a rock is solid, stable and strong.
My 2 cents worth anyways...

JimiTime · 22-02-2009 8:19pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

I appreciate your politeness Jimmy but when one is being asked to accept that Peter should get primacy when it comes to the standing of the apostles then one is obliged to react in whatever way one feels merits the situation and defend Paul, that's the least I can do.

I have no gripe with Peter or the other apostles per sé but don't tell me that they were more important than Paul, they weren't. Paul did more to nurture and protect the Gospel than all the others did. It is his letters more than any others which frame the basis of Christian philosophic thought. It is when one returns to his epistles one produces a reformation.

I use strongish tones in this regard to make those who don't realize that there were any conflicts in the New Testament church, see what Paul had to contend with in his ministry, especially in Jerusalem where the so called 'Pillars' of the church resided.

James pastored the Church in Jerusalem for 19 years before the high priests had him stoned for holding the view that Christ was the messiah. 19 years??? Paul came to the same city and in 3 days caused a riot. What does that tell you about James in Jerusalem? It tells me that he didn't like rattling the theological cages of the Jewish Leaders very much, a job Jesus Himself did pretty well in His earthly ministry, for which He was eventually crucified.

Everywhere Paul went he caused a stir. He was a fire for the cause of the gospel of Christ. For someone to try and tell me that Peter, James or John (as great as they might have been in their own right) should get primacy over Paul just insults me. That's why I put them in their place, and if that sounds offensive to some then maybe their primacy doctrine for Peter needs reviewing and a new study of the life of the apostle Paul might clear a few things up and one might then be able to make an informed decision regarding the who's who between Peter and Paul.

I'm not sure if you got what I was saying. I'm not saying that Peter is more 'OR' less than anyone. I'm saying that, praising Pauls ministry etc, does not have to be done at the expense of other apostles. They were all Apostles, and all had their purposes etc. I think it does them all a great dis-service when we start saying this one was better than this other one etc. Lets not raise one, at the expense of another. Be it Peter or Paul etc. We can honour them all or one in particular, without actually putting down the others. You know what I mean?

Splendour · 22-02-2009 9:51pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not sure if you got what I was saying. I'm not saying that Peter is more 'OR' less than anyone. I'm saying that, praising Pauls ministry etc, does not have to be done at the expense of other apostles. They were all Apostles, and all had their purposes etc. I think it does them all a great dis-service when we start saying this one was better than this other one etc. Lets not raise one, at the expense of another. Be it Peter or Paul etc. We can honour them all or one in particular, without actually putting down the others. You know what I mean?

I find alot of Christians have Paul up on a pedestal. Obviously he was a fantastic disciple and bearer of the gospel but I think the other greats of the new testament are quite often in his shadow. Each of them is unique and I imagine God chose each one carefully for the different attributes they brought to spreading the word.

JimiTime · 22-02-2009 11:15pm

Splendour wrote: »

I find alot of Christians have Paul up on a pedestal. Obviously he was a fantastic disciple and bearer of the gospel but I think the other greats of the new testament are quite often in his shadow. Each of them is unique and I imagine God chose each one carefully for the different attributes they brought to spreading the word.

TBH, I have no problem with people putting Paul or Peter or John etc on pedestals, different people appeal to different people. Paul certainly is the one thats responsible for most of the NT, but this IMO, does not make him 'the greatest' etc. I don't think that the apostles themselves, Paul included, would delight in such language. I think it unwise to start debating about who was the greatest etc. Sure, one can relate and prefer certain apostles for whatever reason, but lets not elevate one above the other, especially from our lowly positions. Thats my point.

To summarise:
To prefer one's teaching methods etc to another. No problem.
To elevate one above the other. Big problem IMO.

kelly1 · 23-02-2009 11:11am

wolfsbane wrote: »

What Roman Catholicism later claimed for him, that was not included in the Lord's remarks. Peter never became the sole possessor of the keys. All the apostles shared that authority. What was said to Peter in Matthew 16 was said to them all in Matthew 18:18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Jesus gave this authority first to Peter alone and later to the apostles collectively. This is what the RCC adheres to today.

wolfsbane wrote: »

And that authority continues with THEM - not with the elders they appointed to rule the Church when they had died out. Apostolic authority continues in the word of God, the Bible.

An authority must have the ability to settle disputes, something which Scripture cannot do. Scripture is of course true but there must be an authority on earth which has the authority to interpret Scripture infallibly. Without this, Christianity would have gone off the rails with the death of the apostles. How do you settle a dispute with a book that cannot speak? I keep banging on about this but very few seem to get my point!

kelly1 · 23-02-2009 11:18am

Splendour wrote: »

Hi Soul Winner, by making this statement it seems you are saying Jesus made a mistake when he chose Peter as a disciple? God does not make mistakes!

That's the very point I was going to make, thank you.

On a similar matter, it irks me when people say the Church lost it way under the influence of Constantine and that a small band of "true" Christians were hidden away underground ready to spring up 1500 years at the Reformation and save the Church from damnation.

Splendour wrote: »

I think Peter is great because of his 'humaness' and if we are all perfectly honest with ourselves, there's more of impetuous Peter in us than there is Paul

I totally agree. Paul was certainly a very powerful and zealous preacher of the Gospel but I find Peter's character more human and warm. I like the gentleness of Peter's writings.

wolfsbane · 23-02-2009 5:23pm

kelly1 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What Roman Catholicism later claimed for him, that was not included in the Lord's remarks. Peter never became the sole possessor of the keys. All the apostles shared that authority. What was said to Peter in Matthew 16 was said to them all in Matthew 18:18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Jesus gave this authority first to Peter alone and later to the apostles collectively. This is what the RCC adheres to today.

We are agreed on that much, then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And that authority continues with THEM - not with the elders they appointed to rule the Church when they had died out. Apostolic authority continues in the word of God, the Bible.
An authority must have the ability to settle disputes, something which Scripture cannot do. Scripture is of course true but there must be an authority on earth which has the authority to interpret Scripture infallibly. Without this, Christianity would have gone off the rails with the death of the apostles. How do you settle a dispute with a book that cannot speak? I keep banging on about this but very few seem to get my point!

I get your point OK, but I disagree with it.

I agree, it would seem like a good idea to have an infallible interpreter on hand to settle all doctrinal disputes. Two problems arise however:
1. Those who claim this ability have failed to use it to settle all doctrinal disputes. Key areas of the Bible remain infallibly un-interpreted and are subject to debate: the End Times, for instance. Or Genesis 1 & 2. Or the Flood.

2. Those who claim this ability have exercised it to produce doctrines that seem to contradict the plain teaching of the Bible: a on-going priesthood separate from the rest of the people of God, for example.

In fact, the Papacy presides over a manifestly morally corrupt institution and rules as 'lords over the flock' - something specifically forbidden by the Lord:
Luke 22:24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.

Our Lord's word being true, Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them, we reject both the Papacy and its claims to infallibility.

That leaves us with the scenario that God did not intend us to have living infallible interpreters of His word, but rather intended us to diligently labour in His infallible word, assisted by the Holy Spirit, to discover its meaning.

That is what historically we have done. Like our individual lives, we have not been perfect - but God has kept us from both moral and doctrinal apostasy, in accordance with His promise:
John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

Those who departed from us - in final moral failure or denial of the faith - were not of us:
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

We do not need infallible interpreters to keep us from apostasy - God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit do that by applying their word to our hearts sufficiently to keep us from falling.

Soul Winner · 24-02-2009 3:42am

Splendour wrote: »

Hi Soul Winner, by making this statement it seems you are saying Jesus made a mistake when he chose Peter as a disciple?

Hi Splendour. I do not contend that Jesus made a mistake by choosing Peter. Like I said I have no gripe with Peter at all. It is only when I am being asked to accept him as superior to Paul that I start to stick up for Paul and try at least to show him (Paul) in the light he deserves. If you re-read over the posts you will notice in Kelly1's posts that he cites a Catholic website that gives citations as to why we must accept the primacy of Peter. That is what I was attacking, not Peter himself.

I'm not purposefully being derogatory toward Peter for the sake of it. He was just a human being like all of us and I have made probably twice as many mistakes in my life as Peter did in his but we mustn't denigrate Paul in showing that Peter was indeed chosen by Jesus. The fact that we debate as to who was the primary apostle of Christ (to the gentiles at least) is tantamount to the ignorance of the importance of Paul. That fact I feel should be obvious to everyone but it isn't. I feel obliged to defend him when this finds expression here. Without Paul we would not have any gentile Churches including the Roman Catholic church. I feel he should get his due recognition where ever and whenever possible. The only time anyone is being knocked off their perch is because it is a perch that they should not be occupying in the first place. If the catholic Church stopped exalting Peter then he wouldn't need abasing by anyone.

Splendour wrote: »

God does not make mistakes!

"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Genesis 6:6

Splendour wrote: »

I think Peter is great because of his 'humaness' and if we are all perfectly honest with ourselves, there's more of impetuous Peter in us than there is Paul

I couldn't agree more. I'm so glad Peter is in the record. His story is the perfect picture of God's grace. If God can work with the likes of Peter then there is hope for all of us. Again that is not meant to be derogatory toward Peter. He knew himself how much he failed. He marveled at the faith of people who never saw Jesus yet trusted Him with all their lives.

"Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory" 1 Peter 1:8

Peter spent three years with Him and still didn't understand the mission of Jesus until the infilling of the holy spirit. The earliest gospel record 'Mark' is widely believed to be influenced by Peter. When Paul decided not to take Mark with him in Acts 15:

"Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left" Acts 15:37-40

Mark must have felt like a failure and possibly said as much to his father in faith Peter:

"She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark." 1 Peter 5:13

It is interesting that it is in Mark's gospel that we find the most acute account of Peter and his failings. This makes sense when one realizes that it must have been to Mark that Peter tried to comfort when he came back from his travels with Paul. I can just hear Peter now, after when Mark related what had happened to him with Paul and his failure: "If you think that's bad, let me tell what I did..." and so it goes with Mark's detailed account of Peter's failings with his Lord in his gospel.

I'll say a few things for Peter, he was the only one to walk on water apart from Jesus

, he was the only one who tried to defend Jesus in the garden, and he thought himself unworthy to be executed in the same manner as his Lord and Saviour. Without the story of Peter and all his failings the gospel record would be all the poorer in its power.

Soul Winner · 24-02-2009 3:56am

kelly1 wrote: »

Scripture is of course true "but" there must be an authority on earth which has the authority to interpret Scripture infallibly. Without this, Christianity would have gone off the rails with the death of the apostles. How do you settle a dispute with a book that cannot speak? I keep banging on about this but very few seem to get my point!

Well hopefully you won't need to keep banging on about it anymore:

"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:13-16

The only time the church goes off the rails is when it departs from the Word of God.

"It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" Matthew 4:4

I'll leave the last word with Peter himself:

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

Soul Winner · 24-02-2009 4:08am

JimiTime wrote: »

You know what I mean?

Yes I do, and I have responded as such to the others above. Hope it clarifies my reasoning somewhat.

Indian82 · 16-05-2020 1:41pm

Splendour wrote: »

Hi Soul Winner, by making this statement it seems you are saying Jesus made a mistake when he chose Peter as a disciple? God does not make mistakes! I think Peter is great because of his 'humaness' and if we are all perfectly honest with ourselves, there's more of impetuous Peter in us than there is Paul

Agree totally. Jesus didn't make a mistake choosing Peter. I have faith Peter fulfilled the mission Jesus charged him with. And he ended up dying for it.
And you are SO right. Peter's flaws and human-ness is why Jesus picked him. He overcame them and served Jesus well. Paul had flaws as well, I'm sure. They both should serve as inspiration to us.

Jesus chose Paul for a different purpose. And he did his job well.

What's the term 'different parts of the body' - all important.

And the only thing I can think that Jesus said about comparing and who is the best.

"The last shall be first and the first last'. I try not to judge.

antiskeptic · 19-05-2020 5:54am

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, it would be great to hear some views on the significance of the following verse from John 1:

Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas? Surely He had a good reason for doing so? Could it possibly have something to do with Matthew 16:18?

Do people agree that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic in His day and would have used the the word Cephas instead of Petra/Petros?

God bless,
Noel.

The significance has, I think to do with what a name is. We assign names to haven't any meaning (that we care much about). Jack, Emily and the like are chosen because people like them, largely. Or maybe the son is named after a parent or grandparent.

Take Isaac though. It means 'he laughs' I gather. Now Abraham was desparate for an heir, so desparate that he planned a somewhat circuitous route to obtain an heir under own steam - before God's providing of one in the form of Isaac.

'He laughs' presumably describes the effect of Isaac's arrival on Abraham. Isaac's name wasn't just an identifier, rather, it reflected what he was about: the source of laughter of relief and joy and delight in Abraham.

Should have called my own son Isaac now that I think of it.

This reflects the workings of God's names. He has many names because he is the source of so many things. He is called Truth, not because he tells it or meets (as the atheists try to say) the standard set outside himself for truth. Rather, he is the Truth.

Peter was the rock (rather, his faith was the pattern of all saving faith, just like Abraham's). No more that Isaac was the first or last to bring relief, joy and delight to a parent, Peter isn't the first or last to have saving faith.

But the name, nevertheless, is significant as a marker for a type. A type of fundamental source. Just like Truth is a name for a fundamental source.

And all who call on the (various) names of the Lord will be saved. Whether that be Truth, Joy, Peace, Forgiveness, Hope.

It follows that desparation is what causes people, like it did Abraham, to call on a name of the Lord. If you are desparate, for truth, peace, health, comfort, forgiveness .. and you call on him, he will save. That makes him the bottom of the barrel - the last place you will look to. And only when you have, like Abraham, run out of all other self-sufficient options.

SouthWesterly · 19-05-2020 6:32am

antiskeptic wrote: »

The significance has, I think to do with what a name is. We assign names to haven't any meaning (that we care much about). Jack, Emily and the like are chosen because people like them, largely.

Take Isaac though. It means 'he laughs' I gather. Now Abraham was desparation for an heir, so desparation he planned a somewhat circuitous route to obtain one under own steam before god's providing one in the form of Isaac.

'He laughs' presumably describes the effect of Isaac's arrival on Abraham. Isaac's name wasn't just an identifier, rather, it reflected what he was about: the source of laughter of relief and joy and delight in Abraham. Should have called my own son Isaac now that I think of it.

This reflects the workings of God's names. He has many names because he is the source of so many things. He is called Truth, not because he tells it or meets (as the atheists try to say) the standard set outside himself for truth. Rather, he is the Truth.

Peter was the rock (rather, his faith was the pattern of all saving faith, just like Abraham's). No more that Isaac was the first or last to bring relief, joy and delight to a parent, Peter isn't the first or last to have saving faith.

But the name, nevertheless, is significant as a marker for a type. A type of fundamental source. Just like Truth is a name for a fundamental source.

It should be noted, petros refers to a small stone, while Petra according to strong refers to a large mass of rock.

Jesus referred to Peter as a stone while He Himself is the Rock on which the Church is built.
You can't build much on a small stone.

dresden8 · 19-05-2020 6:37am

He was probably on a register. You know how the church treat the rule of law.

Peregrinus · 19-05-2020 8:06am

SouthWesterly wrote: »

It should be noted, petros refers to a small stone, while Petra according to strong refers to a large mass of rock.

Jesus referred to Peter as a stone while He Himself is the Rock on which the Church is built.
You can't build much on a small stone.

I wouldn't dismiss the potential of a small stone, when you consider what you can accomplish armed with nothing but a mustard seed!

More seriously, the petra/petros distinction isn't between a big rock and a small one. Petra is rock or stone, the substance. It can refer to rock or stone as an abstract concept, or to a large expanse of undifferentiated rock or stone, e.g. a stony desert, a rocky mountain ridge, a rock formation. Petros is an individual rock or stone, of any size, from pebble to boulder.

What can we deduce from the fact that Jesus supposedly gave Simon the new name of Petros rather than Petra? Nothing; this was a choice made by the those who put this story into Greek. Their choice may have been motivated by nothing more than the fact that "Petra" was a (gramatically) feminine noun, and therefore not apt for a man's name. Or it could emphasise Simon's uniqueness, his distinction from others; he's not just rock, he's this rock.

But, either way, it's their choice, not that of Jesus. The name Jesus assigned to Simon was the Aramaic Kepha. SFAIK the rock/a rock distinction is not relevant to the Aramaic word; it can refer to either.

Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas/Peter...

Comments