Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
42. beheld ] Same word as in Joh 1:36, implying a fixed earnest look; what follows shews that Christ’s gaze penetrated to his heart and read his character.
Simon the son of Jona ] The true reading here and Joh 21:15-17 is Simon the son of John. There is a tradition mat his mother’s name was Johanna. The Greek form In may represent two distinct Hebrew names, Jonah and Johanan = John. There is no need to make Christ’s knowledge of his name and parentage miraculous; Andrew in bringing Simon would naturally mention them.
A stone ] The margin and text should change places, Peter, being in the text and ‘a stone’ in the margin, like ‘the Anointed’ in Joh 1:41. This new name is given with reference to the new relation into which the person named enters; comp. the cases of Abraham, Sarah, Israel. It points to the future office of Simon rather than to his present character. The form Cephas occurs nowhere else in the Gospels or Acts: but comp. 1Co 1:12; 1Co 3:22 ; 1Co 9:5; 1Co 15:5, Gal 1:18; Gal 2:9; Gal 2:11; Gal 2:14.
There is no discrepancy between this and Mat 16:18. Here Christ gives the name Peter; there he reminds S. Peter of it. It is quite clear from this that S. Peter was not first called among the Apostles, a point on which the Synoptists leave us in doubt.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Cephas – This is a Syriac word, meaning the same as the Greek word Peter, a stone. See the notes at Mat 16:17. The stone, or rock, is a symbol of firmness and steadiness of character – a trait in Peters character after the ascension of Jesus that was very remarkable. before the death of Jesus he was rash, headlong, variable; and it is one proof of the omniscience of Jesus that he saw that Peter would possess a character that would be expressed appropriately by the word stone or rock. The word Jonas is a Hebrew word, whose original signification is a dove. It may be that Jesus had respect to that when he gave Simon the name Peter. You now bear a name emblematic of timidity and inconstancy. You shall be called by a name denoting firmness and constancy.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Joh 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus
Everyday usefulness
We are intensely desirous of a revival of religion, and we look for it through some extraordinary agency.
God works in this way sometimes; but while waiting for it we miss actual opportunities, Our proper course is to do what we can and God will be sure to bless it.
I. THE MISSIONARY DISCIPLE.
1. His character.
(1) He was a sincere follower of Jesus. Men who have not made Christs acquaintance experimentally are not fit to work for Him. An unconverted man in the pulpit is an impostor and exposes himself to extraordinary peril.
(2) He was a young convert. He beheld the Lamb of God one day and found out his brother the next. Those who have learned but their A B C let them tell that.
(3) He was a commonplace disciple, yet he became a useful minister. So servants of Christ must not excuse themselves because they are not greatly gifted.
2. His manner was
(1) Prompt,
(2) Persevering.
II. HIS GREAT OBJECT,
1. To bring Peter to Jesus. This should be our aim
(1) Not to a party. To recruit one regiment from another is no real strengthening of the army.
(2) Not to bring men to outward religiousness merely. To make the Sabbath breaker a Sabbath keeper and a Pharisee, to make the prayerless the heartless user of a form of prayer, you but take one poison from him to expose him to another.
(3) Many, alas I are satisfied if they get to the priest, church, sacraments.
2. We may bring men to Jesus
(1) By prayer.
(2) By putting them in the way of being informed about the Gospel.
(3) By our example.
(4) By occasionally, and as opportunity serves, giving a word of importunate entreaty.
III. HIS WISE METHODS.
1. Being zealous he was wise.
(1) He used what ability he had.
(2) He set great store by a single soul.
(3) He did not go far afield to do good. Many Christians do all the good they can five miles away, when the time taken up by going there and back might be well spent in their vineyard at home. Andrew goes to Cappadocia in his after life, but he begins with his brother.
2. How did Andrew persuade Peter?
(1) By narrating his own experience. What you have experienced tell to others.
(2) He put the good news before him in an earnest fashion.
IV. THE SWEET REWARD ANDREW HAD. He won his brothers soul. In your Sunday-school class or in your home there may be an unconverted Wesley or Whitefield. (C.H. Spurgeon.)
This highest voluntary influence
I. It was BENEFICENT. What a universe of good was involved in the simple act of bringing this man to Jesus!
1. What a service was rendered to Peter! His soul translated into a new world.
2. What a service to the disciples of Christ! The introduction of a frank, generous, bold, inspired nature.
3. What a service to the whole world! God alone knows the good Peter did from Pentecost onwards. All this service must be referred to the simple act of Andrew. From one little act may issue an influence for good that may go on widening and deepening for ages.
II. It was NATURAL. Andrew went to Peter, not as an official, but as a man, a brother. What is wanted to bring men to Christ is
1. Common sense, not learning, genius, culture.
2. Love to Christ. Andrews heart was touched and inspired with loving sympathies for Christ. What is wanted in this work is not the influence of the scholar, philosopher, or priest, but of the man. It is the man, not the preacher, who converts. When the man is lost in the preacher his power is gone.
III. It was HONOURABLE. To introduce a man to Christ is to introduce him to one who in philosophy is infinitely greater than Socrates, in wealth infinitely richer than Croesus, in royalty infinitely greater than a Caesar. The work of authors, sages, statesmen, warriors contemptible compared with that of bringing men to Christ.
IV. It was EXEMPLARY.
1. Andrews is an example that all can imitate.
2. An example that all should imitate: an universal duty, not binding on any particular class, but pressing on all relations, all social grades, all intellectual types. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Thou art Simon, thou shalt be called Cephas
Simon and Peter
Christ changed Simons name.
1. As a sign of His authority and of taking entire possession of him, as a king might alter the name of some man whom he had captured.
2. As a promise of transforming power.
3. As a prophecy of his future office and importance in the Church. The Aramaic Cephas is the equivalent of the Greek Peter, a stone. The alternation of these names afterwards is indicative of the following lessons.
I. THE DANGER OF THE NEW AND BETTER NATURE FALLING BACK TO THE OLD. Where Simon is employed in the Gospels it is suggestive of the apostles uninspired and unregenerate humanity.
1. Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have thee. There we see the exquisite delicacy with which Christ points the too presumptuous man away from his own fancied strength to the weakness of his humanity.
2. Simon, sleepest thou? Where is Peter? He would have kept awake.
3. The Lord hath appeared unto Simon. This was from the apostles–all the rest are from Christ–all knew about his fall, that he had ceased to be the rock, and that his precedence and influence were gone.
4. Simon, son of Jona (same as text), lovest thou Me? Christ puts the fallen apostle in his place, makes him go back to the very beginning. He must go through the wicket-gate again.
II. THE FORGIVING LOVE WHICH DISCERNS THE TRUE MAN BELOW ALL HIS SIN.
1. Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow, etc. Here is Christs clear recognition of the better nature subsisting even whilst it appears to be smothered beneath the worse. Condemning the sinner, Christ would not break the bruised reed.
2. Go, tell the disciples and Peter–an incident recorded only by Mark, Peters mouthpiece. Tell Simon would have been a rebuke; tell Peter is a smile of forgiveness, and an outstretched hand to grasp the sad hand of the denier.
III. THE GRAND POSSIBILITY THAT THE NEW MAN MAY TRIUMPH. No more is heard of Simon, with two exceptions.
1. Cornelius is directed to send for Simon, who is called Peter, because outsiders would know him best by the one name, Christians by the other.
2. James, at the council of Jerusalem, calls him Simon, out of old and familiar friendship. Elsewhere it is always Peter. The transformation had now become complete. Effusive, impulsive daring is changed into steadfast, bridled courage. If once he was to be blamed, that showed that he was still a man, and not a faultless, impossible monster. The sand has been put into a hydraulic press and comes out sandstone, strong and tenacious. This transformation is inexplicable without the Resurrection, the Ascension, and Pentecost.
IV. THE WHOLESOME REMEMBRANCE BY THE MAN HIMSELF OF WHAT HE WAS, JOINED WITH THE THANKFUL RECOGNITION OF WHAT HE IS. In his Second Epistle he introduces himself as Simon Peter. Probably the long disused name had vanished from the memory of that generation;. but the old man reverts to it. Through the mist of long years he remembers what he was, and recalls his old un-sanctified self; but he is not afraid to call himself Peter. He is conscious of the higher life not his own which was promised him on the never-to-be-forgotten occasion mentioned in the text. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Personal influences
Whitfield made it his wont wherever he stayed to talk to the members of the household about their souls–with each one personally; but stopping at a certain house with a colonel, who was all that could be wished except a Christian, he was so pleased with the hospitality he received, and so charmed with the general character of the good colonel and his wife and daughters, that he did not like to speak to them about decision as he would have done if they had been less amiable characters. He had stopped with them a week, and during the last night the Spirit of God visited him so that he could not sleep. These people, said he, have been very kind to me, and I have not been faithful to them; I must do it before I go; I must tell them that whatever good thing they have, if they do not believe in Jesus they are lost. He arose and prayed. After praying he still felt contention in his spirit. His old nature said, I cannot do it, but the Holy Spirit seemed to say, Leave them not without warning. At last he thought of a device, and prayed God to accept it. He wrote upon a diamond-shaped pane of glass in the window with his ring these words, One thing thou lackest. He could not bring himself to speak to them, but went his way with many a prayer for their conversion. He had no sooner gone than the woman of the house, who was a great admirer of him, said, I will go up to his room; I like to look at the very place where the man of God has been: She went up and noticed on the window-pane those words, One thing thou lackest. It struck her with conviction in a moment. Ah! said she, I thought he did not care much about us, for I knew he always pleaded with those with whom he stopped, and when I found that he did not do so with us, I thought we had vexed him, but I see how it was; he was too tender in mind to speak to us. She called her daughters up. Look there, girls, said she, see what Mr. Whitfield has written on the window, One thing thou lackest. Call up your father. And the father came up and read that too. One thing thou lackest! and around the bed whereon the man of God had slept they all knelt down and sought that God would give them the one thing they lacked, and ere they left that chamber they had found that one thing, and the whole household rejoiced in Jesus. (C. H.Spurgeon.)
Personal effort
I recollect several persons joining the Church who traced their conversion to the ministry in the Surrey Music Hall, but who said it was not that alone, but another agency co-operating therewith. They were fresh from the country, and some good man, I knew him well, I think he is in heaven now, met two of them at the gate, spoke to them, said he hoped they had enjoyed what they had heard; heard their answer; asked them if they were coming in the evening; said he would be glad if they would drop into his house to tea; they did, and he had a word with them about the Master. The next Sunday it was the same, and at last, those whom the sermons had not much impressed were brought to hear with other ears, till by-and-by, through the good old mans persuasive words, and the good Lords gracious work, they were converted to God. (C. H.Spurgeon.)
One soul precious
Oh, says one, I have had so little success; I have had only one soul saved! That is more than you deserve. If I were to fish for a week, and only catch one fish, I should be sorry; but if that happened to be a sturgeon, a royal fish, I should feel that the quality made up for lack of quantity. When you win a soul it is a great prize. One soul brought to Christ–can you estimate its value? If one be saved, you should be grateful to your Lord, and persevere. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The searching question
I shall now put a question which I daresay has passed through your minds before, but which I would like to tarry there. How many, my dear friend, were you ever the means of bringing to Jesus? You believe that they must perish everlastingly, unless they have faith in Christ. How many have you personally prayed for? How many did you ever break your heart about? How many have you ever talked to concerning Him who is the only Saviour? To how many have you borne your testimony of His kindness and His grace? Upon how many have you laid the tender hand to press them to follow after the Saviour? Ah! well, the questions sound so trite as I put them, and perhaps as they come to your ears you are weary with them as being so commonplace; but by the great day of the appearing of our Lord, when He shall require of you an account of your stewardship, I implore you answer those enquiries, even if they humble you in the very dust. If the answer be painful, seek for the future that your course be mended, and as servants of Christ yearn over souls. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Rareness of personal effort for souls
In hundreds of cases I have vat the question pointedly, Do you know that you have been instrumental in leading one soul to Christ? only to hear the sad confession that there has been no effort made in that direction. (A. G. Pearson, D. D.)
Individual effort
Do not forget individual souls. There is a great rage nowadays for large congregations and for prominent work; but do not forget individual souls. I think it was Rowland Hill who used to say that if he had a number of bottles before him, and he were to dash water over them, a drop might go into this one and a drop into that; but he said, If I take one bottle and pour water in I fill it up to the brim. And so it is with individual souls. There is a personality in the application which cannot be estimated if we are speaking face to face in an honest, manly way. Is not this the best way to do Christian work? (W. P. Lockhart.)
How to win souls
I come from a house from which there is a considerable contingent attending this service this morning, and the question last night was how we should be awakened in time. They resolved to do it by detachments. One young fellow woke up the servant, and some others woke the young ladies, and they each had some one under their care, and knocked at the door until they were answered. It was best done by dividing it, and by giving to each one a special department in the work. And so we do cur work best by dealing with individual men. (W. P.Lockhart.)
The great secret of the success of Harlan Page was that he always aimed at the conversion of some individual; wrestling in prayer with God, and in affectionate entreaty with the sinner, till he saw his wishes realized. By following this plan, although he was in humble life, active work, and often in deep poverty, he lived to see more than a hundred brought to God as the fruit of his zeal and intercession.
Example brings men to Jesus
The Rev. J. A. James, the well-known minister of Birmingham, says, in one of his lectures: If the present lecturer has a right to consider himself a real Christian, if he has been of any service to his fellow-creatures, and has attained to any usefulness in the Church of Christ, he owes it, in the way of means and instrumentality, to the sight of a companion, who slept in the same room with him, bending his knees in prayer on retiring to rest. That scene so unostentatious, and yet so unconcealed, roused my slumbering conscience, and sent an arrow to my heart; for, though I had been religiously educated, I had restrained prayer, and cast off the fear of God. My conversion to God followed, and soon afterwards my entrance upon college studies for the work of the ministry. Nearly half a century has rolled away since then, with all its multitudinous events; but that little chamber, that humble couch, that praying youth, are still present to my imagination, and will never be forgotten, even amidst the splendour of heaven and through the ages of eternity.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 42. Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.] signifies a stone, or fragment of a rock. The reason why this name was given to Simon, who was ever afterwards called Peter, may be seen in the notes on Mat 16:18, Mat 16:19, and particularly in Luke, at the end of chap 9. See Clarke on Lu 9:62
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Andrew having found his brother Simon, conducts him to Jesus. Andrew, and Simon, and Philip were citizens of Bethsaida, Joh 1:44, which was a city of Galilee; how near to the place where John baptized, or Christ lodged, we cannot say. Probably Simon was one of Johns disciples, and came to attend his ministry; so as the disciples only sought him in the crowd, and came with him to Christ. When Christ beheld him, he said,
Thou art Simon; he knew him, and called him by name, and told him his fathers name,
Jonas, and giveth him a new name,
Cephas, which by interpretation doth not signify a head, (as the popish disputant at Berne urged, to prove him the head of the church, as if it had been a Greek word, and came from ; or, as he pretended, ridiculously enough, from an old Greek word, ), but a stone (as this text tells us); by which name we find him called, 1Co 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 2:9; in other places Peter, which signifieth a stone also, or a rock. Cephas is a Syriac word, Peter a Greek word: Christ gave him the name. Both Cephas and Peter are by interpretation, a stone. Beza thinks that our Saviour did not here give him that name, but foretell that he should be so called. Casaubon thinks that the name was here given to him, and with it a new spirit; that whereas before he was (according to his fathers name Jonas, which signifies a dove) fearful and timorous, from this time forward he was as a rock, steady, firm, and full of courage and constancy: but it is a greater question how this text is to be reconciled with Mat 4:18-20, where Andrew and Peter are both said to be espied by Christ, walking by the sea of Galilee; and Luk 5:10, where Simon is reported to be called after they had taken a great draught of fish; and with Mar 3:13, and Luk 6:13, where all the apostles are named as called at one and the same time. Doubtless the calls were different. This in John seems rather to be a prophecy than a call. Those texts, Mat 4:18-20, and Luk 5:10, seem to be their calls to a discipleship. The other texts, Mar 3:13; Luk 6:13, respect their election to the apostleship, and the mission of them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
42. brought him to JesusHappybrothers that thus do to each other!
beheld himfixed hiseyes on him, with significant gaze (as Joh1:36).
Cephas . . . stone(Seeon Mt 16:18).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he brought him to Jesus,…. That is, Andrew brought his brother Simon to Jesus; he persuaded him to go along with him, and showed him where he was; which discovered great zeal for Christ, being desirous of, gaining souls unto him; and great affection to his brother, being heartily concerned that he might know Christ, as well as he; nor did he choose that he should take up with the bare account that he gave of him, but would have him go to him himself, that he might be personally acquainted with him, and instructed by him: and this also shows the readiness and willingness of Simon, to see and hear Christ himself, and not sit down contented with the bare relation his brother gave: no doubt he found his heart stirred up within him, and the desires of his soul going after Christ; and therefore he at once rose up and went with Andrew to him; and thus one person may be the means of bringing another to Christ: and it may be observed, that Peter was not the first of the apostles that was called by Christ, or first knew him; Andrew was before him, and the means of bringing him into an acquaintance with him; had it been the reverse, the Papists would have improved it in favour of Peter, as the prince of the apostles: this clause is omitted in the Persic version.
And when Jesus beheld him; as he was coming, or come to him: he had beheld him before in the glass of his Father’s purposes and decrees; he had viewed him in his blood, and said unto him, live; and he now looked upon him with a look of love, of complacency, and delight:
he said, thou art Simon, the son of Jona; thy name is Simon, and thy father’s name is Jona: he knew both their names, though he might have never seen their faces, nor heard of them: this he said to give Simon a testimony of his omniscience; and which, no doubt, must strike him at once. Simon, or Simeon, was a common name among the Jews, being the name of one of the twelve patriarchs;
[See comments on Mt 10:2]; and so likewise was Jona, being the name of a prophet of theirs; [See comments on Mt 16:17]; and inasmuch as the prophet Jonah was of Gathhepher in Zebulun, which was in Galilee;
[See comments on Joh 7:52]; this might be a common name among the Galilaeans; so that there seems no reason why it should be thought to be the same with John, as the Ethiopic version reads it, and by way of interrogation, “art thou not Simon the son of John?”
Thou shall be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a stone; or Peter as it should rather be rendered; and as it is in the Vulgate Latin, and Ethiopic versions; and as “Cepha”, or “Cephas”, in the Syriac and Chaldee languages signifies a stone, or rock k, so does “Peter” in Greek: hence, the Syriac version here gives no interpretation of the word. Christ not only calls Simon by his present name, at first sight of him, but tells him what his future name should be; and which imports, not only that he should be a lively stone in the spiritual building, the church, but should have a considerable hand in that work, and abide firm and steadfast to Christ, and his interest, notwithstanding his fall; and continue constant and immoveable until death, as he did. The Jews also, in their writings, call him Simeon Kepha l.
k Vid. Targum in Psal. xl. 3. & Prov. xvii. 8. T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 6. 1. & Gloss. in ib. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 63. 2. l Toldos Jesu, p. 20, 21, 22, 23.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Looked upon him ( ). See verse 36 for same word and form of John’s eager gaze at Jesus. Luke uses this word of Jesus when Peter denied him (Lu 22:61).
He brought him ( ). Effective second aorist active indicative of as if Andrew had to overcome some resistance on Simon’s part.
Thou shalt be called Cephas ( ). Apparently before Simon spoke. We do not know whether Jesus had seen Simon before or not, but he at once gives him a nickname that will characterize him some day, though not yet, when he makes the noble confession (Mt 16:17f.), and Jesus will say, “Thou art Peter.” Here the future passive indicative of is only prophecy. The Aramaic (rock) is only applied to Simon in John except by Paul (1Cor 1:12; Gal 1:18, etc.). But the Greek is used by all. In the ancient Greek was used for the massive ledge of rock like Stone Mountain while was a detached fragment of the ledge, though itself large. This distinction may exist in Mt 16:17f., except that Jesus probably used Aramaic which would not have such a distinction.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And he brought him to Jesus.” (eganen auton pros ton lesoun) “And he led him to Jesus,” perhaps the very next day, after he and John had a time of personal fellowship with Jesus, where Jesus resided, Joh 1:39. Philip pointed the Eunuch to Jesus, Act 8:30-37. Who have I led or brought to Jesus? .
2) “And when Jesus beheld him, he said,” (emblepsas auto ho lesous eipen) “Upon looking at him, (at Simon Peter) he said,” directly to Simon.
3) “Thou art Simon the son of Jona:- (su ei Simon ho huios loannou) “You are Simon the heir-son of John: Jesus may have known Simon previously or Andrew may have already talked to Jesus about his brother Simon.
4) “Thou shalt be called Cephas,” (au klethese kephas) “You shall (hereafter) be called Cephas,” an Aramaic name or word meaning stone, as Peter (the Gk. name) means a stone. The change of a name usually implies a change of character or of position, as it did with Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob. Peter was known to the Corinth church exclusively as Cephas, 1Co 1:12; 1Co 3:22; 1Co 9:15; 1Co 15:5.
5) “Which is by interpretation, a stone.” (ho hermeneuetai Petros) “Which is translated peter,” also meaning “a stone,” in the Greek. Simon Peter became, not only an early disciple of Jesus that day, and a member of His New Covenant company or church fellowship, but he also later became one of the twelve apostles of our Lord, and often a prominent spokesman for them, Mat 4:18-19; Mat 10:2.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
42. Thou art Simon. Christ gives a name to Simon, not as men commonly do, from some past event, or from what is now perceived in them, but because he was to make him Peter, ( a stone.) First, he says, Thou art Simon, the son of Jonah. He repeats the name of his father in an abridged form; which is common enough when names are translated into other languages; for it will plainly appear from the last chapter that he was the son of Johanna or John. But all this amounts to nothing more than that he will be a very different person from what he now is. For it is not For the sake of honor that he mentions his father; but as he was descended from a family which was obscure, and which was held in no estimation among men, Christ declares that this will not prevent him from making Simon a man of unshaken courage. The Evangelist, therefore, mentions this as a prediction, that Simon received a new name. I look upon it as a prediction, not only because Christ foresaw the future steadfastness of faith in Peter, but because he foretold what he would give to him. He now magnifies the grace which he determined afterwards to bestow upon him; and therefore he does not say that this is now his name, but delays it till a future time.
Thou shalt be called Cephas. All the godly, indeed, may justly be called Peters ( stones,) which, having been Sounded on Christ, are fitted for building the temple of God; but he alone is so called on account of his singular excellence. Yet the Papists act a ridiculous part, when they substitute him in the place of Christ; so as to be the foundation of the Church, as if he too were not founded on Christ along with the rest of the disciples; and they are doubly ridiculous when out of a stone they make him a head. For among the rhapsodies of Gratian there is a foolish canon under the name of Anacletus, who, exchanging a Hebrew word for a Greek one, and not distinguishing the Greek word κεφαλὴ (kephale) from the Hebrew word Cephas, thinks that by this name Peter was appointed to be Head of the Church. Cephas is rather a Chaldaic than a Hebrew word; but that was the customary pronunciation of it after the Babylonish captivity. There is, then, no ambiguity in the words of Christ; for he promises what Peter had not at all expected, and thus magnifies his own grace to all ages, that his former condition may not lead us to think less highly of him, since this remarkable appellation informs us that he was made a new man.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(42) Beheld.See Note on Joh. 1:29.
A Stone.Better, Peter, as in margin. The word means a stone, but the writer translated for Greek, not for English readers. The rule of the previous verse, which places the Greek word in the text and the English word in the margin, should be followed here.
Cephas.The word occurs only in this place in the Gospels, elsewhere in the New Testament only in St. Paul (1 Cor. and Gal.). Remembering the general significance of Hebrew names, the changes in the Old Testament as of Abram, Sarai, and Jacob, and among these first disciples as of James and John (Mar. 3:16; Mar. 3:18), all these names of Peter seem meant to characterise the man,Thou art now Hearer, the Son of Jehovahs Grace; thou shalt be called and be a Rock-man. (Comp. Note on Mat. 16:17.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
42. Jesus beheld him A memorable glance to fervid Peter. For the first time he meets that Messiah foretold by prophets for ages, whose influence was to shape his future life, and give him a wonderful place in future history. Think of St. Peter’s Church, standing at this day in the ancient capital of imperial Rome, the most magnificent of human structures!
Thou art Though it be the first time that Peter ever saw Jesus, it is not the first time that Jesus, in spirit at least, ever saw Peter. He knows his parentage, his name, and history.
A stone Jesus gives him the new name now, not so much, perhaps, to describe what he already is, as to prophesy and assure him what he may yet become. He had the hardihood of stony material; he may yet acquire the firmness of the rock. When Peter made his memorable confession in Mat 16:18 our Lord recognized his title, as if the probation had been sufficiently passed to fix his claim, as a basis of his position in the new Church. Both passages are perfectly harmonious.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked on him and said, “You are Simon, the son of John, you will be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter)”.’
‘He brought him to Jesus.’ What a multitude of meaning lies in those words. Humanly speaking the great Peter owed his conversion to Andrew. And it is a reminder that that is what we are to seek to do. To bring men to Jesus.
So Simon comes to see for himself, and on seeing Simon, Jesus declares that one day he will be renamed Peter (petros in Greek, cephas in Aramaic – meaning a stone). Already He sees in Simon the raw material of an effective, spiritual leader. This renaming is mentioned again in Mat 16:18, but in both cases the change has the future in mind. Jesus never actually addresses Peter as such by this name until Peter’s acts of betrayal, when He wishes both to warn him and to encourage him (Luk 22:34; Mar 16:7). His becoming ‘the rock-like one’ is yet a long way off.
When we remember how Peter so often got things wrong, and how he failed Jesus at the last, it is an encouragement to us all to know that God knew what he would become in the end. In the same way God knows too what we will become. Once we are in Christ He does not judge us as we are, but as what He knows we will become.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 1:42. Thou art Simon, &c. Though Jesus had never seen Simon before, immediately on his coming in, he saluted him, in full proof of his omniscience, by his own and his Father’s name; adding, in proof of his being possessed of the gift of prophesy, that he should afterwards be called Cephas, which means the same in Syriac that Peter does in the Greek, namely, a rock; a name well adapted to his character, on account of that resolute and patient firmness with which he should maintain the cause of the gospel. See on Mat 16:18. Some have thought that when our Lord said Thou art Simon, he intended an allusion to the name of Simon, which maysignifyahearer;intimatingthecandourandimpartialitywithwhichhewaswilling to hear Christ’s instructions.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Ver. 42. Cephas, which is by interpretation a stone ] Not a head, as some Popish buzzards would needs have it (not knowing a difference between Cephas and ), and all to prove Peter head of the Church. Some of them have said that the damnation of us Protestants is so plainly set down in our own Bibles, that there needs no more for convincing us thereof, but that we have our eyes in our heads (when we open the book) and be able to read it. But he that first interpreted Cephas, a head (against this clear text calling it a stone) either had not his eyes in his head, or else must needs be as perfect a stranger to the Bible as that Bishop of Dunkelden, in Scotland, that thanked God he knew neither the Old Testament nor the New. Or as that other Dutch bishop, Albertus Vindelicorum Episcopus, of whom Luther writeth, that lighting upon a Bible, and being asked (after that he had read awhile in it) what book it was; “I know not,” said he, “what book it is; but this I know, that there is nothing in it that I can find to make for our religion.”
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
42. ] not merely “ for the possessive pronoun ” (according to Winer, 22. 7), but referring to , and furnishing a reason for it.
= = not , but : being the identification simply of the two words , not here of the two titles .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 1:42 . . If with T. R. and Tischendorf we read , the meaning is that Andrew, before John , found his brother; if with W.H [32] we read the meaning is that before Andrew did anything else, and perhaps especially before the other men afterwards named were called, he first of all finds his own brother. Reading , we cannot gather that John went in search also of his brother, and as there is no mention of him at this time the probability is that he was not at hand. is the note of warning that this was but the beginning of a series of calls. . “We have found,” perhaps, as Weiss suggests, with reference to the expectations produced by the Baptist’s teaching. The result of their conversation with Jesus is summed up in these words. They were now convinced that He was the Christ. In Jewish lips “we have found the Messiah” was the most comprehensive of all Eurekas. That John gives the actual words, though he has immediately to translate one of them for his Greek readers, is not without significance in regard to his accuracy in reporting.
[32] Westcott and Hort.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
brought = led. Greek. apoto. Greek. pros. App-104.
Jona. Aramaic for John. App-94. Cephas. Aramaic. Occurs only in 1Co 1:12; 1Co 3:22; 1Co 9:5; 1Co 15:5. Gal 1:2, Gal 1:9.
A stone = Peter = Greek. Petros. See note on Mat 16:18.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
42.] not merely for the possessive pronoun (according to Winer, 22. 7), but referring to , and furnishing a reason for it.
= = not , but : being the identification simply of the two words, not here of the two titles.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 1:42. , having gazed earnestly at him [fixing His eye upon him] An effectual look.- , Simon, son of Jona) These names no one had told the Saviour: and so by this address by name He took complete possession of Peter; comp. Joh 1:48 [His similarly winning Nathanael by showing His omniscience, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee.]-, Cephas) Peter was ever afterwards called by this name, which is a Syriac one, especially when he was staying in Syria.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 1:42
Joh 1:42
He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).-His report brought Simon to Jesus, who, when he looked upon him, saw what was in him, and gave him the name of Cephas, the Hebrew of which Peter is the Greek translation, which in English means rock. It seems that Jesus gave him this name as describing in some respects his character. Andrew first came to Christ and was instrumental in bringing Peter. In their after life Peter was the more active, forward, and prominent in his work. Andrew is seldom mentioned save in the innumeration of the apostles of the Lord. It is an example of how an humble one may be instrumental in bringing forward one of more power and general effectiveness. Peter was already a disciple of John as were these others. The leading characteristics of Peter was the promptitude with which he decided and acted on questions. Jesus beheld him and knew him, for he needed not to be told what is in man.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Thou art: Joh 1:47, Joh 1:48, Joh 2:24, Joh 2:25, Joh 6:70, Joh 6:71, Joh 13:18
the son: Joh 21:15-17, Jonas, Mat 16:17, Barjona
called: 1Co 1:12, 1Co 3:22, 1Co 9:5, 1Co 15:5, Gal 2:9
A stone: or, Peter, Joh 21:2, Mat 10:2, Mat 16:18, Mar 3:16, Luk 5:8, Luk 6:14
Reciprocal: Gen 17:5 – but thy name Gen 32:28 – Thy name Jdg 13:10 – Behold 2Ki 5:4 – and told his lord Jer 1:18 – I have Hos 1:4 – Call Luk 5:3 – which Joh 4:16 – Go Joh 4:25 – Messias Joh 4:43 – and Act 10:5 – whose 1Pe 1:1 – Peter 2Pe 1:1 – Peter
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
This verse corresponds in thought (but not necessarily in chronological order) with Mat 16:18. In that passage Jesus is reported to have said, “Thou art Peter,” while in our present verse he said, “Thou shalt be called Cephas.” The two statements are identical in thought, because the Greek words for “Cephas” and “stone” have virtually the same definition.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
[The son of Jona.] I do not see any reason why the word Joannes; or Joannas; should be here put for Jona; or why any should contend (as many do) that it should be the same with Joannas.
I. In the third chapter of St. Luke Luke_3, the name of Jochanan is sounded three ways in the Greek pronunciation of it, Janna; Luk 3:24; Joanna; Luk 3:27; and Jonan; Luk 3:30; but never Jona.
II. Jona was a name amongst the Jews very commonly used, and we meet with it frequently in the Talmudic authors written Jonah; why, therefore, should not Peter’s father be allowed the name of Jonah as well as that of John?
III. Especially when this son of Jonah imitated the great prophet of that name in this, that both preached to the Gentiles, and both began their journey from Joppa.
[Which is by interpretation, A stone.] So Act 9:26; “Tabitha; which, being interpreted, is Dorcas “: Beza, Caprea, a goat. But what! do the holy penmen of the Scriptures make lexicons, or play the schoolmasters, that they should only teach that the Syriac word Cepha signifies in the Greek language a stone; and Tabitha, Dorcas; that is, a goat? No; they rather teach what Greek proper names answer to those Syriac proper names: for the Syriac proper name is here rendered into the Greek proper name, and not an appellative into an appellative, nor a proper name into an appellative.
But let the Vulgar have what it desires, and be it so, “Thou shalt be called a rock”; yet you will scarce grant that our blessed Saviour should call Simon a rock in the direct and most ordinary sense; “There is no rock save our God,” 2Sa 22:32; where the Greek interpreters, instead of a rock; have the Creator. Which word St. Peter himself makes use of, 1Pe 4:19; showing who is that rock indeed.
There is a rock; or ‘stone of stumbling,’ indeed, as well as a ‘foundation-stone’; and this stone of stumbling hath St. Peter been made, to the fall of many thousands; not by any fault of his, but theirs, who, through ignorance or frowardness, or both, will esteem him as a rock upon which the church is built.
If, therefore, they will so pertinaciously adhere to that version, Et tu vocaberis Petra, let it be rendered into English thus, Thou wilt be called a rock; and let us apprehend our blessed Lord speaking prophetically, and foretelling that grand error that should spring up in the church, viz., that Peter is a rock; than which the Christian world hath not known any thing more sad and destructive.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 1:42. He brought him to Jesus. There can be little doubt that Peter had shared the expectations and longings of his brother Andrew, as well as of all those more earnest spirits of the time who were waiting for the consolation of Israel. He too had been seeking, and he too finds.
Jesus looking upon him said. Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas. Jesus looked upon him with that divine glance which read the heart (comp. Joh 2:25); and, following the custom of which so many illustrations are afforded in the Old Testament, marked the great crisis in his life which had now arrived by giving him a new name, Cephas, with which corresponds the Greek word Petros (a stone or piece of rock). How much importance was attached by the Evangelist to this name given to his brother apostle will appear on other occasions in the course of his Gospel. The name Johannes, or John, corresponds to the Hebrew Jochanan; in Mat 16:17 the same name is represented in a slightly different form (Jona).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Jesus anticipated what Peter would become in the history of the church by God’s grace. He may have had previous contact with him and known Peter’s reputation since both men lived only a few miles apart in Galilee. Simon was a common Jewish name, probably derived from Simeon. Jesus gave him a nickname that expressed his character, which was not uncommon. It is interesting that Simon Peter originally had the same rash and impulsive character as his ancestor Simeon, the second son of Jacob. Cephas is Aramaic, the common language of Palestine, and means "Rock." Peter is the Greek translation of Cephas. As the record of Peter unfolds in the Gospels, he appears as anything but a rock; he was impulsive, volatile, and unreliable. Yet Jesus named Peter in view of what he would become by the power of God, not what he then was.
"In bringing his brother Simon Peter to Christ, no man did the church a greater service than Andrew." [Note: Blum, p. 275.]
Every time we meet Andrew in this Gospel he is bringing someone to Jesus (cf. Joh 6:8; Joh 12:22). Thus he serves as an excellent example of what a disciple of Jesus should do.