In the Matthew passage, Peter and Andrew are together fishing. In the John passage, Andrew was with John the Baptist and Peter was else where?
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
I don't see an inherent conflict between these passages. Specifically, the John passage describes how both Andrew and Simon initially met Jesus; the Matthew passage describes how He called them as disciples. Matthew never claims that the event by the seashore was Jesus' first encounter with the brothers.
Edit: In the account of John, Peter meets Jesus just after Jesus had been baptized, been tempted in the wilderness, and came back (John 1:32-34). Peter's calling is in all of the gospels. In Luke, Jesus was tempted in chapter 4. Afterward, in chapter 5 (coinciding with the chronology in John 1), he calls Peter as a disciple (his calling is paralleled in Matt 4 and Mark 1). In Luke 4:38-39, just before Peter and Andrew were called, Jesus went from the synagogue to the house of - wait for it - Simon! He went to heal His mother in law! This is before Jesus called him as a disciple. Also, in 5:3, he first refers to Peter simply by the name of Simon, just like in 4:38, so we can safely assume it is the same Simon whose house He had visited (otherwise Luke should have/would have given him a distinction, like Simon the fisher, in order to clarify it wasn't the Simon discussed only about ten verses ago in chapter 4, right?) Jesus called him after healing his mother in law! Of course He could have met Him as discussed in John 1 with his actual calling taking place soon after! Does anybody see a flaw or hole in this line of logic?
Before reconciling the synoptic account, generally, with John's account, it is first necessary to reconcile the different versions of the synoptic account.
Wikipedia tells us, "
Issues to be reconciled
In both Mark and Matthew the meeting by the Sea of Galilee seems to be the first time Jesus has met the brothers, and we learn in Mark 3:16 that Jesus surnames Simon as Peter, with Mark indicating that Simon's name was changed on this occasion.
In John 1:35-42, Jesus most certainly first met Andrew with John the Baptist and first met Simon shortly afterwards, when Andrew called him. It was at this time (John 1:42) that Jesus called Simon by the name Cephas, or Peter.
In Matthew 3:13-14, John the Baptist immediately recognises Jesus, but John 1:31,33 has the Baptist twice saying that he had not known Jesus when he came to be baptised. However, Mark makes no mention of this, so the contradiction can be overlooked for present purposes.
The scope of the problem with any attempt to harmonise the synoptic gospels and John's Gospel is summarised by Burton L. Mack, who says in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 177 that the Jesus, setting and storyline of the fourth gospel can not be aligned with the synoptics. It has not been possible to meld John's Jesus with that of the synoptics as if each had merely emphasised different features of the same historical Jesus. He says John's Jesus is an altogether different kind of being.
Elaine Pagels says in Beyond Belief, pages 61-63, that she discerns in John’s Gospel a distinct bias against Peter. John Dominic Crossan, in The Birth of Christianity, page 566, also points to typically oblique examples of the exaltation of the Beloved Disciple over Peter in John's gospel. So, a theme of John's Gospel seems to be to undermine what its author might have felt had become excessive veneration of the apostle Peter.
In keeping with the resolve to minimise the role of Peter in the gospel story, he is no longer the first disciple selected by Jesus, only following Jesus at the insistence of his brother, Andrew. At the same time, Andrew becomes the first to declare Jesus to be the Messiah, or Christ, at the very beginning of the gospel (John 1:41). In Mark's Gospel, Peter is the first disciple to venture that Jesus is the Christ, and only at verse 8:29.
John does not include a list of the disciples, corresponding to 3:14-19, so simply moves the renaming of Simon forward to this first meeting, where the difference passes unnoticed.
Harmonizing John 1, Mark 1, Matthew 4:19, and Luke 5:1-11
All of these passages speak about a call of Peter. But only Mark and Matthew recall the same event. The order in chronology is John, Mark and Matthew, Luke.
JESUS MEETS PETER In John 1, Jesus in introduced to Peter by Andrew. Andrew was following Jesus since the previous day based on his former teacher’s (John’s) testimony that Jesus was the lamb of God. Obviously, though Andrew did not know Jesus, he was taught by John about the Messiah who was to come. So, when John said, “Look, there is the Lamb of God,” Andrew knew that John was talking about the Messiah. Hence, Andrew followed Jesus.
Andrew then brings his brother Peter to Jesus, saying “we have found the Messiah.” And Peter is named Cephas by Jesus.
JESUS CALLS PETER NEXT, Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus was tempted before he called Peter to be a disciple, “a fisher of people.” In that call scene Jesus saw Peter casting a net into the water. And Jesus called to Peter and he followed Jesus who was walking along the shore.
JESUS HEALS PETER’S MOTHER-IN-LAW In Mark Jesus heals Peter’s wife’s mother after Peter is called. Then it is mentioned how many are healed. In Matthew there is no mention of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law but there is mention of many being healed after Peter’s call.
In Luke Peter’s mother-in-law is healed before the scene recorded in Luke 5:1-11
JESUS CONFIRMS PETER’S CALL Luke 5 has Jesus standing by the sea of Galilee when the fishermen are washing their nets. And Jesus has a crowd of people gathered around Him, listening to the Word of God. This is not the same scene we see in Mark and Matthew because Jesus posture is different, and the boats are parked along the edge of the sea, not out in the water. The fishermen are washing their nets, not casting them out.
Some have postured that this is the same day as the scene recorded in Matthew and Mark. Hence, Matthew and Mark recorded the early part of the fishing day (which would have been the evening before because Peter says in Luke that they were “fishing all night”) and Luke records the end of the fishing day.
Such a scenario would require that Jesus was there all night long watching the fishing, or that He was there in the evening, then returned the following morning. This understanding is possible but there is no reason to demand such a scenario. More troublesome is the fact that Luke lists the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law before his call scene in 5:1-11.
Either Luke or Mark is out of order chronologically or Luke has recorded a different event from Mark & Matthew. The latter is more likely.