John 1:43

Ver. 43. “ And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus, looking upon him fixedly, saith, Thou art Simon, son of Jonas, thou shalt be called Cephas (which means: Peter).”

The pres. he finds and he says (John 1:42) were descriptive; the aor. he brought indicates the transition to the following act: the presentation of Peter. The word ἐμβλέπειν denotes a penetrating glance which reaches to the very centre of the individuality. This word serves to explain the following apostrophe; for the latter is precisely the consequence of the way in which Jesus had penetrated the character of Simon, and had discovered in him, at the first look, the elements of the future Peter. It is not necessary to suppose that Jesus in a miraculous way knew the names of Simon and his father; Andrew, in presenting his brother, must have named him to Jesus. Instead of Jona, the three principal Alexandrian authorities read John. The received reading is, perhaps, a correction according to Matthew 16:17 (son of Jonas), where there is no variation of reading and where the name Jonas might be itself an abbreviation of ᾿Ιωάννου (John), as Weiss supposes. A change of name generally marks a change of life or of position. Genesis 17:5: “ Thy name shall be no more Abram (exalted father), but Abraham (father of a multitude).” Genesis 32:28: “ Thy name shall be no more Jacob (supplanter), but Israel (conqueror of God, in honorable combat).” The Aramaic word Kepha (Hebrew, Keph), denotes a piece of rock. By this name, Jesus characterizes Simon as a person courageous enough and decided enough to become the principal support of the new society which He is about to found. There was surely in the physiognomy of this young fisherman, accustomed to brave the dangers of his profession, the expression of a masculine energy and of an originating power. In designating him by this new name, Jesus takes possession of him and consecrates him, with all his natural qualities, to the work which He is going to entrust to him.

Baur regards this story as a fictitious anticipation of that in Matthew 16:18; the author, from his dogmatic standpoint hastens to show forth in Jesus the omniscience of the Logos. But the ἐμβλέψας, having regarded him fixedly, is by no means consistent with such an intention; and as for the expression:

“ Thou art Peter,” Matthew 16, it implies precisely a previous expression in which Jesus had already conferred this surname upon him. Jesus starts, in each case, from that which is, to announce that which is to be; here: “ Thou art Simon; thou shalt be Peter;” in Matthew: thou art Peter; thou shalt really become what this name declares. Availing himself of the fact that Peter is mentioned here third, Hilgenfeld draws up his argument as prosecutor against the author, and says: “Peter is thus deprived by him of the position of the first- called!” And he finds here a proof of the evangelist's ill will towards this apostle. Reuss says, with the same idea, “Peter is here very expressly put in the second place.” But the designation of Andrew as Peter's brother (John 1:41), before the latter has appeared on the scene, and the magnificent surname which Jesus confers upon him at first sight, while no similar honor had been paid to his two predecessors are there not here, in our narrative, so many points designed to exalt Simon Peter to the rank of the principal personage among all those who formed the original company, who surrounded Jesus? And if this narrative had been invented with the purpose of depreciating Peter, in order to give the first place to John, why make Andrew so prominent and place him even before the latter? And besides, of what consequence is the order of arrival here? Does not every unprejudiced reader feel that the narrative is what it is, simply because the event happened thus. Comp., moreover, John 6:68 and John 21:15-19 for the part ascribed to Peter in this Gospel.

A contradiction has been found between this account and that of the calling of the same disciples in Galilee, after the miraculous draught of fishes (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11). De Wette, Bruckner, Meyer himself, regard any reconciliation as impossible, and give preference to the narrative of the fourth Gospel. To the view of Baur, on the contrary, it is our narrative which is an invention of the author. Lucke thinks that the two narratives can be harmonized; that of John having reference to the call of the disciples to faith, that of the Synoptics, to their calling as preachers of the Gospel, in conformity with the words: “ I will make you fishers of men. ” The first view cannot positively explain how the Synoptical narrative could arise from the facts related here by John and altered by the oral tradition. Everything is too completely different in the two scenes; the place: here, Judea; there, Galilee; the time: here, the first days of Jesus' ministry; there, a period already farther on; the persons: in the Synoptics, there is no reference either to Philip or Nathanael; on the other hand, James, who is not named here, is there expressly mentioned; the situation: here, a simple meeting; there, a fishing; finally, the mode: here, a spontaneous attachment; there, an imperative summons.

The view of Baur, on the other hand, cannot explain how the author of the fourth Gospel, in the face of the Synoptical tradition received throughout the whole Church, could attempt to create a new history in all points of the calling of the principal apostles, and a history which positively glorifies Jesus much less than that of the Synoptics. For instead of gaining His disciples by the manifestation of His power, He simply receives them from John the Baptist. The view of Lucke is the only admissible one (see also Weiss, Keil and Westcott). Having returned to Galilee (John 1:44), Jesus went back for a time to the bosom of His own family, which transferred its residence, probably in order to accompany Him, to Capernaum (Matthew 4:13; John 2:12; comp. Mark 3:31). In these circumstances, He naturally left His disciples also to return to the bosom of their families (Peter was married); and He called them again, afterwards, in a complete and decisive manner when the necessities of His work and of their spiritual education for their future task required it. The very readiness with which these young fishermen followed His call at that time (Synoptic account), leaving, at His first word, their family and their work to unite themselves with Him, implies that they had already sustained earlier relations to Him. Thus the account of the Synoptics, far from excluding that of John, implies it. Let us remember that the Synoptic narratives had for their essential object the public ministry of Jesus, and that, consequently, these writings could not omit a fact of such capital importance as the calling of the earliest disciples to the office of preachers. The fourth Gospel, on the contrary, having as its aim to describe the development of apostolic faith, was obliged to set in relief the scene which had been the starting point of this faith. We shall prove in many other cases this reciprocal relation between the two writings, which is explained by their different points of view and aims.