I appreciate your note that has some beautiful passages in it. And as I noted in replies upthread, I believe that Jesus' choice of Simon as a disciple was to show that even the most unlikely could be made useful to furthering the Gospel and applying it. It is instructive to examine Simon's conduct to see how one's own could be improved. Mine, for instance, for it is clear that I take after Simon in many ways.
There is but a razor-thin margin between Simon's salvation and the Iscariot's loss: the difference is in the heart, not so much in the mind. With His omniscience Jesus knew ahead of time, way ahead. I just don't believe it is appropriate to put Simon on a pedestal, then or now.
But thanks for your note.
The argument from silence does not prove the Messiah did not call him Cephas/Kephas. He very well could have.
Nor does your argument on the same basis prove that Jesus ever did. But since the silence of the issue is an inspired, inerrant, complete silence, I take the absence of Jesus use of "Peter" to address him, combined with the very positive indication in an intimate vignette more convincing:
The risen Jesus: "Simon of Jonas, lovestἀγαπάω = sovereignly prefer thou me morefully than thesethan the others do?
Simon: "Yea, Lord; thou knowestperceive that I loveφιλέω = have affection for thee."
Jesus: "Feednurse my lambslittle ones."
(perhaps a contemplative pause?)
Jesus: "Simon of Jonas, lovestἀγαπάω = sovereignly prefer thou me?
Simon: "Yea, Lord; thou knowestperceive that I loveφιλέω = have affection for thee."
Jesus: "Feedtake to pasture my sheepgrown ones."
(another thoughtful moment?)
Jesus (pressing a bit?): "Simon of Jonas, lovestsup>φιλέω = have affection for thou me?
Simon (Peter) (aggrieved at the insistence and alteration of the kind of love mentioned): "Lord, thou knowestperceivehave knowledge that I lovehave affection for thee."
Jesus: "Feedbring fodder to my sheepgrown ones." Jesus then tells Simon of his future.
I would think that if Jesus was in the habit of addressing him by his common nickname, that it would be here, if anywhere. But again, that's just an unproveable hypothesis, not a doctrine. More than anything, my opinion is that this little vignette is the point at which Simon is shown that the six denials of the trial night did not cause Jesus to dismiss him, but rather encouraged Simon to keep trusting in Him and keep on with the ministry, as the others were.
Well, so much for the primacy of "Peter" as "Pope," I hope.
I appreciate your note that has some beautiful passages in it. And as I noted in replies upthread, I believe that Jesus' choice of Simon as a disciple was to show that even the most unlikely could be made useful to furthering the Gospel and applying it. It is instructive to examine Simon's conduct to see how one's own could be improved. Mine, for instance, for it is clear that I take after Simon in many ways.
There is but a razor-thin margin between Simon's salvation and the Iscariot's loss: the difference is in the heart, not so much in the mind. With His omniscience Jesus knew ahead of time, way ahead. I just don't believe it is appropriate to put Simon on a pedestal, then or now.
But thanks for your note.
...
I would think that if Jesus was in the habit of addressing him by his common nickname, that it would be here, if anywhere. But again, that's just an unproveable hypothesis, not a doctrine. More than anything, my opinion is that this little vignette is the point at which Simon is shown that the six denials of the trial night did not cause Jesus to dismiss him, but rather encouraged Simon to keep trusting in Him and keep on with the ministry, as the others were.
Well, so much for the primacy of "Peter" as "Pope," I hope.
Rather, hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
You are welcome and I commend you on your gentle conversation and sharing what you believe to be true. As for putting Simon on a pedestal, I think it right that he be put on a throne judging the twelve tribes of Israel, as the Messiah said. I find it interesting that, as with Jacob/Israel, Simon son of Jonah retained his birth name in the scriptures, in addition to obtaining his new name(s) Peter/Cephas. According to the New Testament, the Messiah continued to call Israel "Jacob" and did not call him "Israel" in the Four Gospels or Book of Acts. That did not mean Jacob was not "Israel" at the same time he was "Jacob," nor that the Messiah never called Jacob by the name "Israel." We simply do not have it recorded.
The Apostle Peter retains his birth name here as well:
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Second Peter, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses one to ten,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James