Why Paul Calls Peter As Cephas In His Books Christianity Stack Exchange, Cepha


Buy Why Paul Calls Peter As Cephas In His Books Christianity Stack Exchange, CephaCheap Why Paul Calls Peter As Cephas In His Books Christianity Stack Exchange, CephaOrder Why Paul Calls Peter As Cephas In His Books Christianity Stack Exchange, CephaWhy Paul Calls Peter As Cephas In His Books Christianity Stack Exchange, Cepha Online No PrescriptionWhy Paul Calls Peter As Cephas In His Books Christianity Stack Exchange, Cepha Online NowWhy Paul Calls Peter As Cephas In His Books Christianity Stack Exchange, Cepha Without Prescriptions
Customer reviews
stardelux
You as always a pleasure to read. Smack)))
SEXuHcTpyKToP
exactly sure!
Crawler
I think you are mistaken. Let's discuss it. Write to me in PM.
MisterX00
Oppa. Accidentally found. Internet is a great thing. I thank the author.
TimurFrunze
yeah I wish I had the speed to quickly
Useit
Sure. It was and with me. Let's discuss this question.
minicooper777
You are absolutely right. This is something there, and I think it's a great idea.
Evgusya
This is something there. Now all became clear to me, I thank for the information.
archpavel
And I will explain how to effectively register your blog in social bookmarking.
chefpovar
Very valuable information

In John 1:42 Jesus called Peter as Cephas.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

But throughout the Gospels, Peter was called as Peter and his books also called in his name I Peter and II Peter.

But why did Paul call Peter, Cephas (Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5)? In some occasions he also calls him as Peter. When I asked my mom, she said Paul was rebuking Peter in the name Cephas. Is this true? Or is calling Peter as Cephas normal?

At times, Paul and Peter had disagreements as in Galatians 2:11-16:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For 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. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas 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?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of 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 the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

How was their relationship as fellow apostles?

Maybe Paul calls Peter (Greek) Cephas (Aramaic) because his actions in Gal 2 denote an Old Testament mindset regarding Gentiles?

Let me start by saying that in v6-9 Peter James and John recognises Paul's gift and anointing in reaching out to the Gentiles. In other words they recognize that Salvation through the Gospel is for gentiles too.

Paul notes that Peter had no problem dining with the gentiles until "certain" Jews from Jerusalem came to visit him in Antioch at which point he began to disassociate himself from gentiles. Paul notes that these "certain" Jews were "pro-circumcision" (no circumcicion; no salvation). What makes this especially bad is that they are men of influence and other Christians started doing the same thing - even Barnabas who was with Paul a long time.

Paul's contention with Peter is that he (Peter) was not acting in consistency with the truth of what he knows in the Gospel (salvation is for everyone and not just the circumcised). Since Peter was one of the 3 disciples closes to Jesus I guess it was assumed that Peter should have known better. (If Paul who was not one of the 12 disciples understood this then surely Peter would understand it more) and even more so that in v6-9 Peter, James and John understands the need to bring gentiles into the fold.

So the way I see it; Paul is using the old school name Cephas because of the old school way of thinking especially after recognizing that reaching out to the gentiles is important and being influential men, they have caused other christians to avoid gentiles too. The effects of v11-14 seem to take away what they did in v6-9

This use of differing names is an interesting study and similar to Jacob/Israel name change and name use in the OT (however I am unable to find out why Jacob was used after the name change).

Just my 2 cents anyway

answered Aug 22 '13 at 23:15

I believe possibly he chose to call Peter Cephas because he was identifying both the church and the person Peter who was jewish and Church.

One lesson might be. We, both as God's children and as members of the church should not disallow what God has allowed. Jesus would call him (fallible: Simon Peter) as (Peter: positionally correct and one of the 12 apostles, and (Cephas: Jewish and Church).

I could be wrong and can't wait to find out from the man himself. Hope this helps. )

Thou art Peter (ou ei Petrov). Christ responds to Peter's emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, "Thou art the Christ." Christ replies, "Thou art Peter." Petrov (Peter) is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (John i. 42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning. In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector ("Iliad," vii. 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone ("Iliad," xvi. 734).

On this rock (epi tauth th petra). The word is feminine, and mean a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (petrov, above).

Used of a ledge of rocks or a rocky peak. In Homer ("Odyssey," ix. 243), the rock (petrhn) which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land ("Odyssey," ix. 484). The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, but to Peter himself, in a sense defined by his previous confession, and as enlightened by the "Father in Heaven."

The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the "chief corner-stone," but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Pet. ii. 4), calls Christ a living stone, and, in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones. In Apoc. xxi. 14, the names of the twelve apostles appear in the twelve foundation-stones of the heavenly city; and in Eph. ii. 20, it is said, "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (i. e. laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone."

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men. "The word petra," says Edersheim, "was used in the same sense in Rabbinic language. According to the Rabbins, when God was about to build his world, he could not rear it on the generation of Enos, nor on that of the flood, who brought destruction upon the world; but when he beheld that Abraham would arise in the future, he said: 'Behold, I have found a rock to build on it, and to found the world,' whence, also, Abraham is called a rock, as it is said: 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.' The parallel between Abraham and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstanding of the Lord's promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented the apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss" ("Life and Times of Jesus").

The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church, to the Jewish portion of which he was a foundation-stone. See Acts, i. 15; ii. 14, 37; iii. 13; iv. 8; v. 15, 29; ix. 34, 40; x. 25, 26; Gal. i. 18. Source(s): http://www. godrules. net/library/vincent/.

answered Feb 12 '14 at 6:24

It seems to me that there are two reasons for name change. One, I infer, is the entire alteration of the soul and therefore the name as we'll to symbolize new life, like Saul to Paul. Another, seems to me, to be a change of role in situations like Jacob to Israel and Simon to Peter/Cephas. I am 17 and still studying, but from what I have read today this appears to make the most sense to me. As a Catholic, I believe Peter was called to the role of "rock" for Christ's church. Seeing how large a role that is I could definitely interpret it as a rock of his bishopricol church and his confirmed name. Just as Jesus loves and respects his mother, yet refers to her as woman when she is acting in her human role of woman, it could be this same distinction of role, rather than a degrading of the person referenced. I don't know if this helps, but it's my best inference:) Happy Sunday!

answered Feb 2 '14 at 19:04