Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

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?

share|improve this question
A good question, and an important one. Was Peter in the confrontation the same as the man Paul habitually addressed as Cephas, or Kephas – Waeshael Jun 22 '13 at 21:49

Peter means "stone" in Greek, while Cephas is "stone" in Aramaic.

That verse is confusing in the NIV; the KJV is clearer:

John 1:42 (KJV) 42And 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.

Christ was speaking in Aramaic, and would have called Simon "Cephas." John wrote his gospel in Greek, so he included the note for his readers that "Cephas" meant "a stone."

share|improve this answer
Cephas doesn't mean "a stone" it means "rock". Taken in context, Jesus was changing Simon's name, as was done to Abraham and Sarah when their role in Salvation History changed. To avoid the obvious because it might sound 'Catholic' is intellectual and spiritual dishonesty. God bless. :) – user3966 Feb 17 '13 at 13:38
@Cameron I don't think there is any functional difference here between "rock" and "stone. This answer stands as an explanation for why there are two names being used that mean the same thing. What the closest English equivalent is is neither here nor there for this question. I suspect the less common rendering used here is simply because of the translation used (older KJV). – Caleb Feb 17 '13 at 19:55
Rock is raw material in situ. Stone usually connotes either human handling or human use, although it can also be used to describe naturally produced fragments of rock larger than a cobble. – Mew Aug 15 '13 at 8:10
I've always been taught that in Matthew "...Peter, and upon this rock..." has two different words for Peter and rock, the former meaning stone and the latter referring to rock, something bigger. Have others been taught this? – Mirror318 Nov 29 '13 at 7:47
@Mirror318 They are slightly different, Petros (masculine) and petra (feminine) for the man and that whereupon the Church is built respectively. But that's due to peculiarities of Greek grammar, and any attempt to say "Peter was't the rock" is very difficult to maintain. – lonesomeday Feb 6 '14 at 8:27

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

share|improve this answer

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. :)

  1. 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):

share|improve this answer
Welcome to C.SE. This is good (I like the sourcing). When you get the chance, please check out our tour and specifically How we are different than other sites. – Affable Geek Feb 12 '14 at 15:49

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!

share|improve this answer
This answer would be a lot better if you could add references showing that this is a common understanding, and who teaches/believes it. On this site, we're not looking for personal interpretation, but rather focusing on what various Christian groups teach. See How we are different than other sites? and What makes a good supported answer? – David Feb 2 '14 at 21:56
Name changes probably do accompany character or role changes, but in this case Peter and Cephas mean the same thing: rock. So why does Paul use the Aramaic version in some of his letters? – curiousdannii May 31 '14 at 13:24

In 1 Cor 15 v.4-5,why does Paul say that after his resurrection Christ, "was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.." Firstly it suggests that Cephas might have been one of the 70 disciples, rather than Peter the Apostle; secondly it omits the two Marys mentioned as the first to see the risen Christ in Matthew 28 v 1-10?

share|improve this answer
Welcome to Christianity.SE. We're generally looking for a little more than this in answers. I see how this is related, but it doesn't really resolve the question. Would you consider editing to expand this to fully address the original question? You might find What makes a good supported answer? a helpful reference. – Caleb Aug 15 '13 at 8:03
Rather, it probably means "first seen to Peter, then to the rest of the twelve." – John Peyton Aug 15 '13 at 15:06

protected by Community May 31 '14 at 16:37

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.