Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Peter (Rock)?

[hoser]

So if it wasnt' significant like so many of you say, why did he do it? God changed other names in the Old Testament.

Abram --> Abraham
Sarai --> Sarah
Jacob --> Isael

Simon --> Kepha (Rock) Peter

So, the debate here is not about whether or not Peter was the rock of Christs Church or not, but why is it that He changed his name. This has been done only a few other times by God.

 

[Iollain]

Because Peter believes that Jesus is the Son of God. We are living stones who together make the house of God on earth.

 

[hoser]

Because Peter believes that Jesus is the Son of God. We are living stones who together make the house of God on earth.

And no one else did? Boy you'd think that the other Apostles would feel kinda slighted at this, since they all believed that Jesus was the son of God. Hey, sorry about the rest of you Apostles, Peter beat you to it, and because of that I will change his name and ha ha, not your's! Come on!

 

[revduane]

Because Peter believes that Jesus is the Son of God. We are living stones who together make the house of God on earth.

Truer words were never spoken. AMEN

 

[Iollain]

I'm pretty sure that is why Hoser.

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

 

[hoser]

I'm pretty sure that is why Hoser.

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Boy that is weak. So there really was no significance at all? What about the rest of the Apostles? Why were they slighted?

 

[talitha]

First of all, I don't think the other disciples at that point had the revelation that Jesus was the Son of God. I think they were following this rabbi that they thought could very well be the promised Messiah. I don't think they had the understanding that the Messiah would be divine. Peter had this revelation at that moment and spoke it out of his heart.

That said, I'd like to give my current thought on the title-question.

The patriarchs often built altars to memorialize important spiritual events in their lives. It's my understanding that they made these altars by simply piling rocks on top of one another. I believe that the Lord Jesus was memorializing this event, this epiphany - when for the first time one of his followers realized who He was.

Here's a link to an article that I found to be quite instructive and literate on this subject.....
http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html

 

[nephilimiyr]

And no one else did?

Actually millions upon millions of people have afterwards but I believe Peter was the first to acknowledge this by faith. Jesus told him after his confession that he did not believe this of himself but only because the Father in heaven revealed it to him. Peter was the first.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Boy that is weak. So there really was no significance at all?

The significance is that Peter was the first to believe by faith in who Jesus Christ was and that this was revealed to him by the Father. It's all about the one who reveals this revelation, not about the one receiving this revelation.

 

[johnd]

Now I see it's an RC that's picking this fight. Hmmm.

Rocks being very common in that part of the world, the Grecianized Jews had many names for rocks and metaphoric use of them in scripture. Such terms as stone (lithos), little rock (petros), boulder (petra), or foundation (themelios). In any case it is clear in the writings of both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter that Jesus Christ is the corner stone / foundation for the Church:

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

And Peter's name change? It had to do with his answer in Matthew 16 about Jesus. We all must believe what Peter said in order to be saved:

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1 Peter 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

So the debate need not rage on. The Bible already answers the age old point about Peter being the foundation of the Church. He isn't, Jesus is. Even Peter wrote that Jesus is the corner stone / foundation. Jesus is the rock on which he builds his Church.

 

[johnd]

... So, the debate here...

ought to be was Peter ever even in Rome?

Wouldn't it be a hoot if the body entombed at St. Peter's Basillica was actually the remains of the Apostle Paul?

 

[prodromos]

Jesus gave Simon the name Peter (rock) when He first called him to follow Him. He also gave James and John the name "Sons of Thunder". If Christ renaming Simon was of great significance then so too surely was the renaming of James and John, yet I don't recall anything of theological or ecclesiological significance being associated with the latter. Why then has so much been made of the former?

John

 

[prodromos]

And no one else did? Boy you'd think that the other Apostles would feel kinda slighted at this, since they all believed that Jesus was the son of God. Hey, sorry about the rest of you Apostles, Peter beat you to it, and because of that I will change his name and ha ha, not your's! Come on!

Simon Peter was the first to speak and so Christ used him as the example, but since the other disciples also believed the same then they also participated vicariously in the name change. All who confess Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, they too are Peter.

John (Peter)

 

[talitha]

Simon Peter was the first to speak and so Christ used him as the example, but since the other disciples also believed the same then they also participated vicariously in the name change. All who confess Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, they too are Peter.

a prophetic insight from a 'TAW' brother! Halleluia!

 

[constance]

Skipping right past the whole "what does rock mean", Hoser, I'm just going to address the heart of your real point. I wish I had more time to give this post justice, I need to run to get to work.

Pope Alexander VI (the Borgia Pope) lived in the fifteenth century. In a good history on him, you will find that he made his 17yo son an Archbishop, and his son a cardinal. Oh, and he burned Savonarola at the stake. And any nobleman or clergy person who had money...would be accused of a crime and maybe "die" in prison...their money would be confiscated....He was such a bad pope that St. Peter's refused his body until forced to take it.
His successor forbade the saying of a mass for him, saying: "It is blasphemous to pray for the damned."

He was not the *only* corrupt pope, just the one that happened to come to mind.

There are certainly corrupt people in every church.

Maybe this means that you shouldn't rely on any church structure.

Hierarchical structure (with one person in control) is the most dangerous kind, because it provides a corrupt leader with absolute control.

Constance

 

[prodromos]

a prophetic insight from a 'TAW' brother! Halleluia!

I'd be more inclined to call it "personal biased opinion" if you don't mind

John