How do you reconcile the two accounts of Jesus calling Peter? (Matt 4:18-19 and John 1:35-42)

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?

8 Answers 8


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?

  • +1 While I agree there need not be a contradiction, Matthew sure makes it sound like the disciples had never met Jesus before they were called. Bonhoeffer in The Cost of Discipleship characterized the call as answered by faith and not reputation or former friendship or any prior contact. Jan 5, 2012 at 1:38
  • @GalacticCowboy: So you are saying that the John passage takes place first so that by the time the Matthew passage takes place, Peter and Andrew would have already known Jesus, as Jon said in his comment?
    – epotter
    Jan 5, 2012 at 12:01
  • 1
    Given that the fundamental circumstances are clearly different, and the John passage explicitly claims to be a first meeting between Jesus and the two men, that seems to be the clearest way to read this. Jan 5, 2012 at 13:52

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.

  • Welcome to Stack Exchange, we are glad you are here. Please consider registering an account to fully take advantage of what this site has to offer. Also, be sure to check out the site tour and read up on how this site is a little different than other sites around the web. This is not a comment on the quality of your answer, but rather a standard welcome message.
    – ThaddeusB
    Aug 17, 2015 at 21:02
  • 1
    Actually Peter's mother in law is healed in Matthew,but doesn't occur until chapter Matt 8:11. Oct 5, 2017 at 15:27

Before reconciling the synoptic account, generally, with John's account, it is first necessary to reconcile the different versions of the synoptic account.

  • In Mark 1:16, Jesus sees Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea and calls them to follow him, and that he will make them fishers of men. Later, in verses 1:29-30, he visits the house of Simon, where Simon's mother-in-law lies ill.

  • Matthew 4:18,8:14 follow Mark reasonably closely and do not present a contradiction against Mark.

  • In Luke 4:38, Jesus enters visits the house of Simon, where Simon's mother-in-law lies ill. Later, in 5:3 he finds Simon washing, not casting, his net and miraculously tells Simon how to catch a great haul of fish - Jesus says he will teach Simon to be a fisher of men. Andrew does not seem to be present and is only mentioned in chapter 6, where all the disciples are listed.

Wikipedia tells us, "The most widely accepted hypothesis today, however, is that Mark was the first gospel and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, together with considerable additional material." If Mark was the source used by the authors of Matthew and Luke, it ought to be the most accurate, at least of the synoptic gospels, and Luke should be ignored wherever it contradicts Mark, such as in the chronology of events. Comparisons should ideally be limited to Mark and John, although using Matthew presents no problem in this instance.

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.


There are 2 stories here. The first is when Andrew and Peter first meet Jesus in John's account. The second is when Andrew, Peter, James and John are called as disciples, as described in the synoptic gospels.

In the first story, Andrew and another (often believed to be the apostle John, Andrew's business partner) is with John the Baptist when John sees Jesus and proclaims he's the lamb of God (Jn 1,36). Andrew starts to follow Jesus, and tells his brother Peter. Jesus therefore meets Andrew, Peter, and possibly John (Jn 1, 40-42).

Some time later, while John the Baptist was imprisoned (Mk 1, 14) we get the second story, with Mark and Matthew providing the shortened version, and Luke writing the more extensive account. Jesus is preaching and there are lots of people crowding around, so he gets into a boat and pushes out a little way so they can see and hear him (Luke 5, 1-3). After he's finished, he tells Peter to go fishing again - which he reluctantly does after explaining he had spent the entire night fishing without a catch, and they get a huge haul of fish. Peter (and implicitly Andrew) call out James and John in another boat to help get the catch ashore, and even with the additional boat the nets are breaking and the boats nearly sink (Luke 5, 6-10).

The accounts in Mark and Matthew are more brief. Here, there is no description of the crowds, the preaching from the boat, the previous night's fishing or the huge haul of fish. Instead, Mark tells us Andrew and Peter were fishing, and James and John were mending nets. Jesus calls them and they follow (Mark 1, 14-19) and (Matt 4, 18-22).

All these accounts fit together. Andrew, Peter and John met Jesus before he calls them to be disciples. Jesus is preaching and uses Peter's boat to be able to speak to more people. After finishing they fish, bringing in a huge haul that breaks nets and follow Jesus. In the shorter versions, they fish, mend nets and follow Jesus.


A basic mistake is often made when reading John's gospel as if it was an account parallel with the other three gospels. It is radically different, written at a different time, and for a different purpose.

John was the last apostle to write anything, and his writing was done when he was in his nineties. He was the only apostle left alive, and he was phenomenally old, for that era. He had received the visionary Revelation while on the penal island of Patmos, and obediently wrote down everything heaven had told him to write about events from his day to the return of Jesus Christ. That was what informed his gospel account. That is why it does not read like a biography and is not in chronological order. As one astute Christian author puts it, regarding John's gospel:

"Here is a man to whom God has drawn curtain after curtain, veil after veil, till the the essence of things lies all revealed before the conscious awareness of his inward sight. With his calm interior vision he discerns the primeval genesis at the utmost reaches of time; he sees the elemental meaning of things; he perceives in the visions of the Almighty the purpose at the dawn of Creation...

His eyes beheld, he discerned, he saw the divine and heavenly light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ... He saw the hidden mystery, of which Paul says, 'which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God'... That was how he saw the beginning. That was why he wrote in the beginning. 'These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name..' That 'believing' meant belief in him as he had been revealed. And that revelation commences 'in the beginning', John 1:1." John chapters 1 to 12 - The First Six Signs, John Metclfe, pp.16-17 http://www.johnmetcalfepublishingtrust.co.uk/contact_us.htm

If John's Prologue is not appreciated, lots of strange things will appear to the reader who supposes his is but one of four (similar) accounts. No. John's gospel serves a unique purpose, only revealed to John as the end of the first century was about to break. That is why he writes what he does about Jesus having Andrew bring his brother, Simon, to him, and Jesus saying he would be called Simon Peter. On the morrow, Jesus commands them, and Philip and Nathaniel, to follow him. The next thing John records is the beginning of Jesus' signs, in Cana of Galilee, manifesting his glory, and his disciples believing on him (John 2:1-1).

But notice what John leaves out - he never mentions the baptism of Jesus (just what John the Baptist said about the Spirit's witness at that time.) He says not a word about the 40 days Jesus immediately spent thereafter, being tempted in the wilderness. Indeed, John leap-frogs from the logos creating everything "in the beginning" to the arrival of John the Baptist; as if nothing worth mentioning (for the purpose of his singular account) happened from creation till John the Baptist starting to prepare the way for Jesus. Think well on that. The Prologue is the key to grasping why John wrote what he did, and why he left out what he did.

Matthew's account of Jesus calling Andrew and Simon might well read very differently, for Matthew was long dead by the time John wrote his account, whereas John had just received heavenly visions of the risen Christ sharing the throne of God in heaven, with events leading up to his return. But please note that neither account contradicts the other. Different details are given. Put them together to get a fuller account. Yet Matthew's details served his purpose in writing mainly for a Jewish readership, while John was writing for Jews and Gentiles already suffering Roman persecution, with worse to come (as his visions had informed him.)

John wrote about Simon Peter before John the Baptist had been thrown into prison. Two of John's disciples believed John's testimony upon seeing Jesus, "Behold! The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world". They had been prepared for the coming Messiah by John's baptism. When Messiah appeared, they immediately followed him. Then three more men were called and started following, likewise so prepared by John. The first sign Jesus performed at Cana was before John was thrown into prison.

Matthew wrote, "Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee..." ch. 4 vs. 12, and in verse 18 records an incident by the sea of Galilee regarding Andrew and his brother, Simon, but calls him Simon Peter without mentioning the initial naming of Simon by Jesus prior to the miracle at Cana. Comparing the two accounts shows how the different authors had different details to record, according to the different purposes of their accounts. Not contradictory - different. Put them together, and there's no problem.


I am no scholar, but I am not concerned with the differing accounts. They were written by Jesus' followers well after these events took place - likely as they aged.

I am 65 years old. If I wrote my account of a childhood family experience, and shared recollections with my siblings, you can be sure our account and timelines would differ. Also, the absence of collusion adds further credibility to the accounts. They could have met together and said, “ Okay guys, we need to get this right. Our accounts need to harmonize if we expect anyone to believe us. That obviously did not happen.

What is important is the underlying message and harmony of the saving gospel message and divine identity of Jesus. On this, they were without a doubt, on the same page.

  • Welcome to BHSX. Thanks for your contribution. Please remember to take the tour (link below) to better understand how this site works. This answer could be improved with some references.
    – Dottard
    Mar 29, 2021 at 21:54

Here you get the reconciliation

I give you the timeline of incidents that occurred as below,

  1. Jesus got baptized at BethaBara (John 1:28-34)

  2. Next day John and Andrew met Jesus and stayed with him. Andrew testified Jesus to Peter (John 1:35-41)

  3. Jesus was taken to the wilderness and tempted by the tempter (Matt 4:1-11, Luke 4: 1-13)

  4. He went into Galilee and preached Gospel (Matt 4:12 -17, Luke 4:14,15)

  5. He preached in Nazareth and people tried to kill him (Luke 4:16-30)

  6. He preached in Capernaum (Luke 4:31-37)

  7. He went to Bethsaida to heal Peter’s mother in law (Luke 4:38-39)

  8. Preaching gospel around Galilee (Luke 4:40–44)

  9. Meeting Peter in Bethsaida (Matt 4:18-22, Luke 5:1-11, John 1:42)

  10. Went to Capernaum (John 1:43,44, Matt 4:23)

I considered there is a time gap between John 1:41 and John 1:42.

40 Andrew was one of the two disciples who had followed Jesus. They had heard what John had said about Jesus. Andrew was Simon Peter's brother. 41 The first thing that Andrew did was to find his brother, Simon. Andrew said to Simon, ‘We have found the Messiah.’ (‘Messiah’ and ‘Christ’ mean the same.) 42 Then he brought Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at Simon and he said, ‘You are Simon, John's son. Your name will be Cephas.’ This name is the same as Peter, which means ‘rock’. (John 1 40-42)Easy English version)

Note the ‘then’ at the beginning of verse 42. The Greek word καὶ is generally translated as ‘and’ in English. But it has many more meanings in the root language.

If we consider this gap, then everything fits. I considered the basic understanding that Gospel writers choose what they record according to their purpose of writing it. So the apostle John came straight to the meeting of Jesus and Peter, ignoring so many other incidents in between as said at the end of his gospel:

25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written


The event in Matthew at the sea and the one in Luke do not seem to describe different events. Matthew is a summary of the meeting described in Luke - he saw them fishing in Matthew and in Luke it details how they went out and fished together. I see no reason to take Matthew's account to mean "as his eyes laid on them they were fishing". Initially they were washing nets but he told to go cast the nets out again. Hence his interaction with them involved fishing and it is accurate to say, "He saw them fishing," since Matthew felt that was the focal point of the story, especially considering Jesus' words echoed in Luke, "I will make you fishers of men."

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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